Skip to main content

Full text of "Congressional record : proceedings and debates of the ... Congress"

See other formats


UNIVERSITY OF 

ILLINOIS LIBRARY 

AT URBANA-CHAMPAIGN 

BOOKSTACKS 



H&a 






UNITED STATES 




OF AMERICA 



Congressional "Record 

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 200^ CONGRESS 

FIRST SESSION 



VOLUME 133— PART 17 

AUGUST 7, 1987 TO SEPTEMBER 17, 1987 
(PAGES 23021 TO 24474) 



UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE, WASHINGTON, 1987 



For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 




United States 
of America 



Congressional Hccord 

PROCEEDINGS AND DEBATES OF THE 100 CONGRESS, FIRST SESSION 



HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES— Friday, August 7, 1987 



The House met at 10 a.m. 

The Chaplain, Rev. James David 
Ford, D.D., offered the following 
prayer: 

Teach us, O gracious God, a sense of 
community, where people realize their 
common heritage, where they appreci- 
ate their shared hopes, where they 
care for one another. May Your bless- 
ing be upon this place that every 
person, respecting the special back- 
ground and responsibility of others, 
will keep the focus on the mutual 
goals of our community, of justice and 
peace and respect for one another. 
This we pray. Amen. 



THE JOURNAL 

The SPEAKER. The Chaff has ex- 
amined the Journal of the last day's 
proceedings and announces to the 
House his approval thereof. 

Pursuant to clause 1, rule I, the 
Journal stands approved. 



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

A message from the Senate by Mr. 
Hallen, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate has passed with an 
amendment in which the concurrence 
of the House is requested, a bill of the 
House of the following title: 

H.R. 1340. An act to improve the distribu- 
tion procedures for agricultural commod- 
ities and their products donated for the pur- 
poses of assistance through the Department 
of Agriculture, and for other purposes. 

The message also announced that 
the Senate has passed bills of the fol- 
lowing titles, in which the concurrence 
of the House is requested: 

S. 945. An act to require the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to make grants 
to local governments for demonstration 
projects to provide respite homes and other 
assistance for infants abandoned in hospi- 
tals, and for other purposes; 

S. 1194. An act to transfer jurisdiction 
over certain lands in Bernalillo County, NM, 
from the General Services Administration 
to the Veterans' Administration; 

S. 1196. An act to provide for the en- 
hanced understanding and wise use of 
ocean, coastal, and Great Lakes resources by 
strengthening the National Sea Grant Col- 



lege Program and by initiating a Strategic 
Coastal Research Program, and for other 
purposes; 

S. 1402. An act to amend title VIII of the 
Public Health Service Act to establish pro- 
grams to reduce the shortage of profession- 
al nurses; and 

S. 1532. An act relating to the payment 
for telecommunications equipment and cer- 
tain services furnished by the Sergeant at 
Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate. 



MINESWEEPING OPERATIONS IN 
THE PERSIAN GULF: WILL AC- 
COUNTABILITY BE SACRIFICED 
AGAIN? 

(Mr. COELHO asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. COELHO. Mr. Speaker, the 
recent tragedy in the Persian Gulf 
that cost the lives of 37 Americans 
seemed to many a replay of the earlier 
tragedy in Beirut at the U.S. Marine 
barracks that took 241 lives. 

Yet as John Chancellor noted in a 
recent commentary, the Pentagon 
stopped courts-martial in both cases. 
Mr. Chancellor draws a disturbing con- 
clusion: 

What this does, of course, is to keep the 
story of what happened to the Stark out of 
the headlines. A court-martial might have 
dragged on for weeks with embarrassing de- 
tails in the news every day. 

Today we face a new question. Why 
were not minesweeping operations in- 
cluded immediately in the initial plans 
for the convoy operations in the Per- 
sian Gulf? 

Will accountability be sacrificed 
again, and that question forced aside 
in the interest of pushing another 
headline off the front page? 



MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFER- 
EES ON THE TRADE BILL, H.R. 3 

(Mr. SOLOMON asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute.) 

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, this 
morning you are going to be asked to 
appoint conferees to H.R. 3, the trade 
bill. At that time I would like to alert 



the membership that I will be at- 
tempting to offer a motion to instruct 
those conferees to accept the Senate 
language that bars Toshiba products 
from being imported into this country. 

We all know that Toshiba's actions 
are blatant disregard of our own na- 
tional security and are going to cost 
this country and the taxpayers of this 
Nation billions of dollars to catch up 
because of what Toshiba has done just 
to gain the almighty dollar and to dis- 
regard the national security of the 
free world. 

So I hope those Members that are 
interested in this motion to instruct 
will come over and will assist me in 
trying to get the House to vote for this 
motion to instruct. 



CONGRATULATIONS TO THE 
FELTSMAN FAMILY 

(Mr. VOLKMER asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, it was 
with a great deal of joy yesterday that 
I learned Vladimir Feltsman and his 
family have been allowed to leave the 
Soviet Union. With this move, not 
only has a family found freedom but 
the world will now rediscover one of 
the great musical talents of our time. 

More than a year ago Congressman 
Kemp of New York joined my efforts 
in leading a drive in this House to con- 
tact and urge Soviet leader Mikhail 
Gorbachev to allow the Feltsman 
family to emigrate. Many in this body 
joined our efforts— efforts that surely 
helped to free this family. I'm sure 
Congressman Kemp joins me in ex- 
pressing thanks to our colleagues. But 
our efforts cannot stop with the 
happy news of yesterday. There are 
many, many more in the Soviet Union 
who are having their basic human 
rights denied by not being allowed to 
emigrate. But, unlike Vladimir Felts- 
man, these people are not world-re- 
nowned musicians; they are mer- 
chants, educators, laborers, students, 
they are the every day people who 



□ This symbol represents the time of day during the House proceedings, e.g., □ 1407 is 2:07 p.im. 
Matter set in this typeface indicates words inserted or appended, rather than spoken, by a Member of the House on the floor. 



?30?1 



23022 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



have one thing in common— they seek 
freedom. 

I know that many of you have sent 
letters to Mr. Gorbachev urging that 
others in the Soviet Union be allowed 
to emigrate. I know that those efforts 
have surely had some effect. I hope 
you will continue your efforts. I know 
I'll be continuing my efforts to see 
that those who want freedom, find it. 



IRS AND PIT BULLS HAVE 
SEIZURE FEVER 

(Mr. MARLENEE asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, the 
IRS and pit bulls have a lot in 
common. Both are violent, vicious 
creatures who prey on the unfortu- 
nate. But in the case of the IRS, the 
unfortunate are taxpayers. 

The IRS now rewards its agents who 
seize taxpayer property. Signs in some 
regional offices read "Seizure Fever; 
Get It." Promotions are enhanced by 
the number of seizures the agent suc- 
ceeds in. Property in many cases they 
seize is the property of the helpless 
and even the retired are not immune. 
This seizure fever must be muzzled. A 
couple weeks ago the IRS seized the 
assets of a 12-year-old boy— the IRS 
actually sunk their teeth into a kids' 
entire $10.35 in savings— and like a pit 
bull, had to be threatened to release 
its grip. 

The taxpayers' bill of rights is a 
good first step toward leashing the 
IRS. I urge all my colleagues to co- 
sponsor, support, and vote for the tax- 
payer's bill of rights. Let's end the 
IRS' reign of terror and slap a collar 
on the most abusive agency in the 
Federal Government. 



ADMINISTRATION SHOULD CON- 
SULT WITH CONGRESS PRIOR 
TO FUTURE ARMS SALES 

(Mr. LEVINE of California asked 
and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise 
and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. LEVINE of California. Mr. 
Speaker, there are growing indications 
that this administration plans to re- 
submit a Saudi arms package when 
Congress reconvenes in September. As 
on past occasions, administration in- 
tentions on this matter have reached 
the Hill, not through meaningful con- 
sultations but through hints and pro- 
nouncements. 

It is not my intention, Mr. Speaker, 
to prejudge the merits or the outcome 
of any such proposal. I do want to sug- 
gest, however, that the administration 
might consider the fact that many 
Members will remain skeptical of a 
package which includes items that 
Congress has already opposed this 
year, such as F-15's and Mavericks. 



If we wish to pursue constructive 
policies in the Mideast and if we wish 
to fashion policies that serve Ameri- 
can interests and the real needs of the 
region, I would hope that this adminis- 
tration would reconsider submitting 
this package at least in the absence of 
meaningful consultations. 

Rather than renew past battles on 
issues that already have been fought 
earlier this year, would it not make 
more sense for the administration to 
work with Congress to fashion a policy 
which commands a broader base of 
support? 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, before 
an arms package is proposed I would 
hope that the administration would 
first engage with Congress in the kind 
of meaningful consultations they have 
thus far avoided. Only then will there 
be a solid process for all parties to de- 
termine whether all or part of a pro- 
posed sale has merit and should pro- 
ceed. 



LET US JOIN TO HELP THOSE 
UNFORTUNATE MAIMED CHIL- 
DREN FROM EL SALVADOR 

(Mr. WOLF asked and was given per- 
mission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. WOLF. Mr. Speaker, this is a 
picture of a young 7-year-old girl from 
El Salvador named Angela Agustina 
Bonilla, who stepped on a land mine 
that had been planted by the guerril- 
las. 

Mr. Speaker, in El Salvador, guerril- 
la land mines are maiming hundreds 
of innocent children each year. The 
mines, which are placed in coffee and 
mango fields and along heavily trav- 
eled paths, are designed not to kill, but 
instead to injure. As a result, hundreds 
of children are losing limbs and suffer- 
ing other injuries. 

Working with Project HOPE, the 
Knights of Malta, AID, and U.S. Am- 
bassador to El Salvador Edwin Corr, 
we have developed a program to bring 
the most severely injured children to 
the United States to receive treatment 
for their injuries. 

Last week, Jaimie Hernandez and 
Jose Mejano, two 13-year-old Salvador- 
an children, were accompanied to Ar- 
lington in my congressional district in 
northern Virginia by Salvadoran First 
Lady Inez Duarte. They became the 
first two El Salvadoran children to re- 
ceive specialized treatment under the 
plan. 

Eastern, Pan American, and TACA 
airlines have agreed to transport chil- 
dren to the United States each month 
at no cost. 

Our need now, Mr. Speaker, is to 
identify hospitals across the country 
to care for these children. Arlington 
Hospital in my congressional district is 
currently caring for two children. 



If every major hospital across the 
country were to care for just one child, 
our problem would be solved. 

I urge my colleagues to become in- 
volved in this program and identify 
hospitals in their congressioanl dis- 
tricts to care for these children. 

Mr. Speaker, to whom much is given, 
much is expected. We have so much in 
this country. We have an opportunity 
to help those who are the least of 
these. 



REVAMPING THE FARM CREDIT 
SYSTEM, CONSENSUS LEGISLA- 
TION 

(Mr. de la GARZA asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
would like to inform you that the 
Committee on Agriculture has ap- 
proved a bill revamping the Farm 
Credit System. The bill passed 40 to 2 
and it is consensus legislation. We 
hope that it might be able to be 
brought to the floor the first week 
after we return from the August 
recess. I assure you that the diligent 
work of all of the members of the com- 
mittee, the input from all sectors of 
agriculture was received by the com- 
mittee and this is the best legislation 
that we can bring you at this time. 

I assure all of my colleagues that 
this year you will have no better bill 
that will give you a better return for 
the investment than this revamping of 
the Farm Credit System and I urge 
you to look at it during the recess and 
be prepared to work with us to finalize 
the action as we bring it to the floor in 
September. 



SUPERCONDUCTING SUPER COL- 
LIDER AUTHORIZATION FOR 
1988 

(Mr. HASTERT asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today, 
the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. 
Roe], the distinguished chairman of 
the Science, Space, and Technology 
Committee, the gentleman from New 
Mexico [Mr. Lujan], the distinguished 
vice chairman of the Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee, and the 
gentleman from New Jersey [Mr. Tor- 
ricelli], are introducing legislation to 
authorize fiscal year 1988 funding of 
$35 million for the superconducting 
super collider. 

I applaud the efforts of these gentle- 
men to ensure that this essential first 
year funding for the development and 
construction of this incredibly promis- 
ing research facility is made a reality. 
More than 200 original cosponsors, of 
which I am proud to be included, have 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23023 



joined the sponsors of this legislation 
in demonstrating to Congress the over- 
whelming support that this bill, and 
SSC itself, has received. 

Fermilab, the Nation's largest exist- 
ing cyclotron, and essentially a smaller 
version of the SSC, is located within 
my congressional district at Batavia, 
IL. I have had the opportunity to wit- 
ness first hand the tremendous ad- 
vances in high energy physics that 
have come about through research at 
this facility. Consequently, I urge all 
Members of this body to strongly sup- 
port this new vision for our Nation's 
future. 



DAVID BURR WILL BE LONG 
REMEMBERED 

(Mr. McCURDY asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Speaker, almost 
everyone who had enjoyed success can 
point to someone in their life who has 
had a critical impact. Someone who 
took a little extra time to make a per- 
sonal investment in your future, some- 
one who cared more than the others 
and was there when you needed advice 
or friendship. 

I have been blessed with a number 
of these special people to whom I am 
forever indebted. This week, the State 
of Oklahoma, the University of Okla- 
homa and hundreds— maybe thou- 
sands—of people who were touched by 
his life, lost a great friend. 

David A. Burr, vice president of the 
University of Oklahoma, died Thurs- 
day leaving his wonderful wife Carol 
and their three children. 

David Burr dedicated his life and 
career to the University of Oklahoma, 
its faculty, staff and more important- 
ly, the students in whom he took such 
an individual interest. He was always 
there to give a helping hand. As a stu- 
dent, when I didn't quite know where 
that next tuition payment was going 
to come from; he gave me a job and of- 
fered to personally cosign a loan— a 
risky precedent for a university offi- 
cial. 

Our Nation is a better place because 
of David Burr. He believed that our 
most important investment was an ex- 
cellent university and the young 
people it serves. 

I join so many of his friends 
throughout Oklahoma and this coun- 
try who mourn our mutual loss but re- 
joice in his lasting contribution. 



EVENING NEWS OF AUGUST 7, 
1787 

(Mr. GEKAS asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I am re- 
porting to you from the floor of the 



convention in Independence Hall, 
Philadelphia. The 10-day recess that 
the delegates had taken in order to 
allow the Committee of Detail to work 
out the final draft of the final docu- 
ment has ended and the delegates are 
back on the floor. 

There is a debate raging at this very 
moment on one aspect of the duties 
and responsibilities of the Congress of 
the United States, the first great 
number of articles that are going to 
appear in this document. 

□ 1015 

The basic argument now is on a 
small detail, yet one that is important, 
on whether or not to imbed in this 
document the starting date of each 
session of Congress, whether it should 
be in December of the year before 
starting the session or during the 
month of January when the session 
begins. What they have decided, it 
seems to me, although they have not 
put the finishing touches on it, is that 
they are going to allow Congress by 
law to determine the starting date of 
each term. 

Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania 
is now beginning a separate argument 
on whether or not the ownership of 
property should have anything to do 
with the qualifications of electors, and 
later as to whether or not that should 
be a qualification as to whether or not 
one can be a Member of Congress. 

I am reporting to you from the floor 
of the convention. It seems that every- 
one has a great deal of optimism 
during this hot summer in Philadel- 
phia. 



VETERANS' ADMINISTRATION 
RESEARCH ON THE CUTTING 
EDGE 

(Mr. MONTGOMERY asked and 
was given permission to address the 
House for 1 minute and to revise and 
extend his remarks.) 

Mr. MONTGOMERY. Mr. Speaker, 
at least twice in recent days there 
have been news reports of medical 
breakthroughs by Veterans' Adminis- 
tration physicians. Many times I have 
come before my colleagues to mention 
the virtues of the VA's excellent re- 
search program, which has produced 
two Nobel Prize recipients. I am 
pleased to share with you these latest 
successes. 

Researchers led by Dr. Robert 
Owen, a VA physician in San Francis- 
co, have discovered that a hard-to- 
detect parasite may be causing the 
severe wasting experienced by AIDS 
patients. Only the National Institutes 
of Health and the Centers for Disease 
Control conduct more AIDS research 
than the VA. We firmly believe that 
the VA will play a major role in the 
search for answers in this health 
crisis. 



Also, researchers at the Yale School 
of Medicine and the VA hospital in 
West Haven, CT, have identified a cal- 
cium-regulating hormone they believe 
may help in detecting and treating 
cancer. 

Mr. Speaker, these are two more fine 
examples of the outstanding research 
being conducted within the VA in an 
effort to improve our quality of life. 
Funding for VA research is money 
well spent. 



NEW HAMPSHIRE UTILITY CHAL- 
LENGES THE CONSTITUTION 

(Mr. GREGG asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. GREGG. Mr. Speaker, the 
Public Service Co. of New Hampshire 
has stated that it intends to request a 
15-percent rate hike and move to over- 
rule on constitutional grounds the 
banning of construction work in 
progress in the State of New Hamp- 
shire. This, in my opinion, is not only 
inappropriate, it is outrageous. 

The people of New Hampshire have 
spoken very clearly and said that they 
do not wish construction work in 
progress. They have made it very clear 
that they do not expect to be billed for 
something which is not functioning. It 
is totally inappropriate of the Public 
Service Co. to seek this way around 
what is obviously the will of the 
people of New Hampshire. 

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I 
would strongly urge the Public Service 
Co. to reconsider its position and to 
not proceed down the route of chal- 
lenging constitutionally the construc- 
tion works in process bill. 



IN SUPPORT OF CBI 
LEGISLATION 

(Mr. de LUGO asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. de LUGO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to 
support new legislation that is crucial 
to the well-being of our neighbors in 
the Caribbean, as well as beneficial to 
the United States. I'm speaking of the 
Caribbean Basin Economic Recovery 
Expansion Act, introduced by the gen- 
tleman from Florida [Mr. Gibbons] on 
Wednesday of this week. 

When Congress passed the Caribbe- 
an Basin Initiative in 1983 we thought 
it would improve trade between the 
Caribbean islands and United States. 
But it has failed. Exports from the 
Caribbean to the United States actual- 
ly have dropped since 1983. Now this 
new legislation is needed to correct 
that imbalance. 

This bill benefits the United States 
at the same time as it helps the Carib- 
bean. The stability of the Caribbean, 
with its open shipping lanes for our oil 






23024 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



and other products, is vital to our na- 
tional interest. We have to promote 
economic development in these islands 
if we want to assure their stability and 
continued friendliness. 

I want to commend the sponsors of 
this bill, who have looked beyond their 
own districts to think about the broad- 
er interests of the Caribbean and the 
United States: 

Sam Gibbons, who put his Subcom- 
mittee on Trade to work on this issue. 

Jake Pickle, who had his Subcom- 
mittee on Oversight hold hearings and 
thoroughly study the subject for a 
year. 

Plus Frank Guarini, as chairman of 
the Friends of the Caribbean, Charlie 
Rangel, Bill Frenzel, and Dick 
Schulze. 

They all deserve our gratitude and 
their legislation deserves our support. 



LET'S CELEBRATE THE NEWEST 
SHIP OF THE LINE: THE U.S.S. 
"FORT McHENRY" 

(Mrs. BENTLEY asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for one minute and to revise and 
extend her remarks.) 

Mrs. BENTLEY. Mr. Speaker, on 
Saturday, August 8, I will be in Seattle 
at the Lockheed Shipyard to commis- 
sion the U.S.S. Fort McHenry. A Whid- 
bey Island class LSD, it seems fitting 
that this ship, used as a durable dock, 
should be named for a battle site 
whose famous victory was won by citi- 
zen soldiers who took on the pride of 
the British Army— soldiers trained in 
the fields of Europe against Napole- 
on—and licked them. 

It was "in the dawn's early light" 
over Fort McHenry that the "Star 
Spangled Banner" was seen by Francis 
Scott Key, who was being held on a 
British ship in Baltimore Harbor as 
that battle was waged. The dawn 
brought not only victory, Fort 
McHenry held, but it also brought a 
conviction to the British that they 
must sue for peace. On that night— 
"The nest of pirates" as the Baltimore 
ships' captains and the citizens of Bal- 
timore and North Point had been la- 
beled by the London Press destroyed 
the British will. 

Fort McHenry was the last battle of 
the War of 1812. The Treaty of Paris, 
ending the war, was signed before the 
Battle of New Orleans occurred. 

We won it at Baltimore— "pirates" 
and farmers, merchants, and ships 
chandlers. And we are so proud to 
have this wonderful new ship to cele- 
brate anew the American spirit of that 
victorious dawn in Baltimore Harbor. 

Help us wish her crew Godspeed. 



MEMBERS SEEK ANSWERS IN 
FEDERAL COURT ON WAR 
POWERS ACT 

(Mr. TORRICELLI asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. TORRICELLI. Mr. Speaker, 
under our constitutional system the 
President of the United States has 
great and vast powers in foreign policy 
and in conducting the affairs of our 
military, but they are not unlimited 
powers. The War Powers Act provides 
specifically that this Congress will be 
notified when American forces are 
placed in imminent threat of hostil- 
ities. 

Today, Mr. Speaker, the largest fleet 
to gather in a generation is taking 
form in the Persian Gulf. American 
lives have been lost. Clear and danger- 
ous threats have been made by a hos- 
tile government in Tehran. It is simply 
not plausible to argue that an immi- 
nent threat of hostilities does not face 
our forces, and that the threshold of 
the War Powers Act has not been 
reached. 

Over 100 of our colleagues have now 
joined in petitioning the Federal dis- 
trict court to enforce the law and have 
the President comply. I urge my col- 
leagues to join. The result of our suc- 
cess will be one American policy, a 
message to Tehran that the laws are 
being followed and that the Congress 
and the President stand together in re- 
assurance to the American people that 
whatever sacrifice may be had, what- 
ever lives may be lost, planning is 
being done, this Congress is being in- 
formed, we are meeting our responsi- 
bilities, and that whatever we may 
face together in the future, we will do 
it together. 



ODILE DODGE STEWART 

(Mr. BUECHNER asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. BUECHNER. Mr. Speaker, it is 
with deep sympathy and great sadness 
that I rise to acknowledge the recent 
passing of a dedicated American, Odile 
Dodge Stewart, mother of well-known 
public servant Phyllis Schlafly. 

Mrs. Stewart enjoyed a well-respect- 
ed reputation not only in the State of 
Missouri but across the Nation as a 
patron of the arts. Her great love for 
the arts took her to the St. Louis 
Museum of Art where from 1937 
through 1962 the caliber of her contri- 
butions were far beyond the call of 
duty. It was always her goal to keep 
art alive and to spread the joy of art 
among many. 

Mrs. Stewart's selfless efforts ex- 
tended to other causes as well. She 
was an original member of the Missou- 
ri Historical Society and a member of 



the Missouri chapter of the National 
Society of Colonial Dames of America. 

Mrs. Stewart passed on July 31, 
1987, at the age of 91. Her passion for 
achievement; her strength; and her in- 
dependence can be seen in her daugh- 
ters Phyllis Schlafly and Losi Dodge 
Pfiefer, eight grandchildren and five 
great-grandchildren. On behalf of her 
many friends and admirers I extend 
our deepest condolences. 

Odile Dodge Stewart's efforts and 
accomplishments will always be with 



THE SPEAKER AND THE PRESI- 
DENT COMMENDED FOR 
PEACE OVERTURES IN NICARA- 
GUA 

(Mr. TRAFICANT asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise today to commend the President- 
yes, commend the President— for his 
recent decision concerning a possible 
peace effort for Nicaragua. It is re- 
freshing to see that both our Speaker 
and the President are attempting a 
joint effort to solve the crisis in that 
region. 

Even though I am concerned, as are 
many others, that a 60-day time limit 
is very restrictive, it is also refreshing 
to hear that the President would be 
willing to extend that deadline if 
peace efforts seem to progress. And 
that is our goal. This policy makes 
sense. 

The leadership of our Speaker is the 
cornerstone and foundation of this ini- 
tiative. What also is refreshing is that 
evidently in the last year and a half of 
this administration Congress and the 
White House will attempt to work out 
a mutual agreement by which we can 
lead America safely in the future. 
Americans want to hear that. 

So I think it is important in the 
House that we stand behind our 
Speaker, who has taken a bold step, 
one for peace in Central America, and 
the second for peace with the White 
House. I commend our Speaker, and 
we should stand behind him. 



INFLATION IN EDUCATION 

(Mr. GRANDY asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. GRANDY. Mr. Speaker, the col- 
lege board recently released the re- 
sults of a survey measuring the sky- 
rocketing higher education inflation 
rate which is an average of 5 to 8 per- 
cent. The board also reported average 
increases in tuition and fees among 
private 4-year colleges to be 6 percent 
since the 1977-78 year. Increases at 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23025 



public institutions has been as much 
as 20 percent annually. 

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in higher 
education has become headline news. 
Just today, the Washington Post re- 
ported on its front page that "College 
Costs Reach as High as $75,000." Like- 
wise, the headline in today's USA 
Today read "College Costs Climb 8%; 
No End in Sight." The Mason City 
Globe-Gazette in my district reported 
today that "Tuition Goes Up, Up, Up." 

Its time to put an end to this eco- 
nomic disaster for our young people 
whose future is dependent on a solid 
college education. 

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing 
a bill, along with my friend and col- 
league, Mr. Daub, which offers hope to 
our Nation's youth. Many of today's 
young people desiring to attend col- 
lege suddenly find their dreams shat- 
tered. College costs are rising at a time 
when many families, who at one time 
may have been eligible for Federal as- 
sistance, are no longer able to tap into 
the resources once provided by the 
Federal Government. By taking action 
now, we can help many of our young 
people avoid such a tragedy. 

The bill we are introducing today 
would offer families the incentives 
they need to begin building a college 
savings account which their children 
can depend on to help finance college 
expenses. Our bill would encourage 
the creation of college savings ac- 
counts, the contributions of which 
would be tax exempt. In order to en- 
courage lower and middle-income fam- 
ilies to save, accruals by those whose 
income is below $35,000 would be in- 
dexed when calculating eligibility for 
Federal aid. Without this kind of in- 
dexing method, those families most in 
need of resources would have little in- 
centive to create such an account. 
Under this bill, all lower and middle- 
income families have reason to save. 

This bill also guards against the 
withdrawal of funds from the account 
for purposes other than education. 
Thus, funds cannot be used strictly for 
tax-shelter purposes. 

States are already addressing the 
growing need for college savings ac- 
counts and it is time for Congress to 
provide for a savings instrument 
which can be used across State lines. 

I urge my colleagues to join us in 
sponsoring this legislation and to work 
toward enactment so that thousands 
of young Americans will have the op- 
portunity to continue their education. 



□ 1030 

AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO 
DECLARE RECESSES TODAY 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that it be in order 
for the Speaker to declare recesses on 
this legislative day subject to the call 
of the Chair. 



The SPEAKER. Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington? 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reserv- 
ing the right to object, can we assume 
that this means that we can anticipate 
that we will not be moving toward 
recess probably today? 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Washington. 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding. 

I will tell the gentleman, we are 
dealing today with a limited legislative 
program, as the gentleman knows. The 
committee in conference has not yet 
reached agreement, so that it is neces- 
sary to make this request. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, reserv- 
ing the right to object, do we have any 
agreement as to how much notice 
Members will have before we recon- 
vene the House, so that Members can 
feel somewhat free to leave the Hill? 

Mr. FOLEY. I think we would sug- 
gest 1 hour's notice before reconven- 
ing. 

Mr. WALKER. Put out by the whip 
systems? 

Mr. FOLEY. By the whip systems on 
each side. 

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Illinois. 

Mr. MICHEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding. 

May I inquire, since all the Members 
would like to know a little bit of the 
schedule with regards to any kind of 
recess, what is the intention now as we 
proceed this morning with the pro- 
gram? 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, If the 
gentleman will yield further, the pro- 
gram is the Armenian resolution, and 
that is the extent of the program 
today except for usual unanimous-con- 
sent requests and special orders. 

Mr. MICHEL. When will we have 
the appointment of conferees on the 
trade bill? 

The SPEAKER. We are waiting mo- 
mentarily for reports from 2 of the 12 
committee Chairs, and it is the inten- 
tion of the Chair to make those ap- 
pointments as soon as the motion is 
agreed to and go to conference. 

We would probably be able to take 
that up before the time that we take 
up the Armenian resolution. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, further 
reserving the right to object, I do un- 
derstand that there is a bill out here 
from the Committee on Agriculture in 
addition to the Armenian resolution. 

Are there any more bills anticipated 
to be brought to the floor today? 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. WALKER. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Washington. 



Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding. 

I have just been advised by the 
chairman of the Committee on Agri- 
culture, the gentleman does have a 
resolution the gentleman would like to 
have considered. 

It is a sense of Congress resolution, 
and the chairman of the committee 
shall attempt to call it up by unani- 
mous consent. 

Mr. WALKER. I understand that. 

Further reserving the right to 
object, do we have any other bills that 
we are going to have under that kind 
of process? 

Mr. FOLEY. Only unanimous-con- 
sent requests that have been cleared 
by the minority side would be brought 
up. 

I would like to tell the gentleman 
that there is standing authority by 
unanimous consent to consider any 
legislation extending the debt ceiling 
which was reported by the Committee 
on Ways and Means, and is brought up 
with the consent of the leadership. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker. I thank 
the gentleman. 

Further reserving the right to 
object, I would simply point out that 
these periods before recess tend to be 
times when we get an awful lot of leg- 
islation being brought to the floor 
that is somewhat troublesome. 

I would hope that we are going to 
scrupulously 

Mr. FOLEY, with the exception of 
legislation dealing with the extension 
of the public debt, we have no inten- 
tion of bringing major legislative mat- 
ters before the House not scheduled 
and announced. 

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I with- 
draw my reservation of objection. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington? 

Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, reserving 
the right to object for one amplifica- 
tion, if I could question the majority 
leader. 

Is the majority leader saying in ex- 
plicit or implicit terms that we will be 
in session tomorrow and/or Sunday? 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. GEKAS. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Washington. 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding. 

I am not able to tell the gentleman 
that at this time. We will not have leg- 
islative business to carry us beyond 
around noon today, and we will not 
have a report from the Committee on 
Ways and Means or the conference 
committee at that time in my judg- 
ment, so we are requesting recess au- 
thority. 

It may be the House will be in ses- 
sion tomorrow, but I cannot tell the 
gentleman at this time. 









23026 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Mr. GEKAS. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman, and I withdraw my res- 
ervation of objection. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from 
Washington? 

There was no objection. 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE 
SPEAKER 

The SPEAKER. The Chair will 
advise Members that at the conclusion 
of the 1-minute speeches, it would be 
the intention of the Chair to recognize 
the gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Ros- 
tenkowski] for a motion to go to con- 
ference on the trade bill. 



NICARAGUA: THE ROAD TO 
PEACE? 

(Mr. WHEAT asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. WHEAT. Mr. Speaker, after 
trying to force-feed the Congress with 
military solutions to the situation in 
Nicaragua, President Reagan has 
stunned many of us with his new 11th- 
hour enthusiasm for the art of diplo- 
macy. Is it really possible that the 
same administration that for 7 years 
spurned negotiated Central American 
peace plans, now expects to sign one in 
60 days? The President assures us that 
he is sincere in his purpose— to bring 
stability, security, and peace to Cen- 
tral America, to put an end to the 
senseless violence that has raped the 
spirit of the Nicaraguan people. 

I want to believe the President, and 
I want these negotiations to succeed. 
But my own enthusiasm is tempered 
by past experience. Historians like to 
say that "you don't know where you're 
going till you know where you've 
been." We've met the President at the 
crossroads of peace before— we've left 
those crossroads feeling disappointed 
and betrayed. Nonetheless, I applaud 
the President's initiative, for there 
could be no more welcome traveler on 
the road to peace. 



SENDING MICKEY MOUSE HOME 
TO DISNEYLAND 

(Mr. DioGUARDI asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. DioGUARDI. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise this morning to report to the 
American people that, if they are 
planning to take their summer vaca- 
tion at Disneyland or Disney World, 
they may not find Mickey Mouse 
when they arrive. No, he isn't sick, 
he's feeling fine. In fact, Mickey is 
right here in Washington working his 
second job as he has done for as long 
as any of us can remember: He is pro- 
ducing the financial information Con- 



gress uses every year to concoct our 
budget. 

Of course, Mickey's services don't 
come cheap. Mickey Mouse financial 
management budget and accounting 
systems are costing the American tax- 
payer billions each year. 

If you are like me, I'm sure you 
would rather see Mickey Mouse 
making children smile instead of 
making taxpayers cry. Yesterday, I in- 
troduced legislation to relieve Mickey 
of his Federal duties by calling for 
radical changes in Federal financial 
managment systems through the cre- 
ation of an independent Chief Finan- 
cial Officer for the United States. 

Mr. Speaker, it's time to send 
Mickey Mouse back to Disneyland and 
take fantasyland accounting and budg- 
eting systems out of Washington. 



IN SUPPORT OF SUPERCON- 
DUCTING SUPER COLLIDER 
AUTHORIZATION BILL 

(Mr. BRUCE asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks. ) 

Mr. BRUCE. Mr. Speaker, today 
Chairman Bob Roe and Manny Lujan, 
ranking minority member of the Sci- 
ence, Space, and Technology Commit- 
tee, will join with our colleague Bob 
Torricelli to introduce a bill author- 
izing $35 million for the superconduct- 
ing super collider for fiscal year 1988. 
As a member of the Science Commit- 
tee and as an original cosponsor of 
this important legislation, I rise in 
strong support of this bill. 

With the introduction of this bill, 
Congress possesses the considerable 
responsibility of deciding whether the 
United States should move ahead with 
the world's largest and most advanced 
scientific project. I am pleased to note 
that since the President's endorsement 
of the SSC last February, there has 
been a steady increase in congressional 
support for the project: Over 40 House 
Members went on record in support of 
the SSC in two special orders I hosted 
in March; the super collider attracted 
further congressional attention and 
support in April, when the House Sci- 
ence Committee held 3 days of well- 
publicized hearings on the SSC; last 
month, over 65 of my colleagues 
signed a letter that I sent to the House 
Appropriations Committee endorsing a 
full $35 million appropriation for the 
project; and today, we have over 200 
Members cosponsoring this SSC au- 
thorization bill. 

Passage of this legislation would rep- 
resent a tremendous leap forward for 
American science and technology: The 
SSC will enable scientists here to con- 
tinue their quest for a single theory 
describing all the interactions of 
matter and energy. In addition, the 
use and development of the most ad- 
vanced technologies for the SSC can 



be expected to lead to spinoffs in the 
areas of electronics, nuclear medicine, 
and superconductivity. If the United 
States does not move forward on the 
SSC, others will. Europe and the 
Soviet Union have already embarked 
upon powerful new accelerators and 
Japan has expressed interest in a simi- 
lar project. 

Mr. Speaker, the SSC is a bold and 
innovative project that is ready to go. 
Initial construction funds in fiscal 
year 1988 mean that industrial partici- 
pation can be expanded and that 
formal negotiations for international 
participation and cost-sharing can pro- 
ceed. I urge my colleagues to support 
this bill. 



OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE 

(Mr. PORTER asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. PORTER. Mr. Speaker, instead 
of deciding whether President Rea- 
gan's Supreme Court nominee, Robert 
Bork, is right for the job, the Senate 
Judiciary Committee has decided to 
spend valuable time interpreting their 
role of advise and consent. One side 
says the debate is philosophy, the 
other says the issue should be candi- 
date credentials. The real issue is poli- 
tics. 

The Senate has scheduled hearings 
for September 15, a full 2 l h months 
after Bork was nominated. If it takes 
the committee 75 days to set up the 
hearing, how fast should we expect 
them to make a decision? The commit- 
tee chairman has promised a vote in 
committee by October 1. But Senate 
procedures allow floor delay, and it is 
highly probable that the Court will as- 
semble on October 1 with only 8 mem- 
bers, making 4 to 4 splits likely. 

This would truly be an obstruction 
of justice, Mr. Speaker. I urge the 
Senate to fulfill their responsibility 
and give the American people what 
they deserve— a complete Supreme 
Court. The Senate should hear Robert 
Bork now and decide if he is the man 
for the job— listen to his credentials 
and his philosophy of the law— but 
turn a deaf ear to political maneuver- 
ing. 



□ 1040 



WALL STREET JOURNAL 

REPORT ON MALE AND 
FEMALE UNEMPLOYMENT 

RATES 

(Mr. MILLER of California asked 
and was given permission to address 
the House for 1 minute and to revise 
and extend his remarks.) 

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. 
Speaker, last week the Wall Street 
Journal reported that for the first 
time since records have been collected, 



^^n? 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23027 



unemployment rates for women equal 
those of men. Yet, equality in unem- 
ployment rates does not mean equality 
of treatment under laws governing un- 
employment. The unemployment in- 
surance system, set up to increase eco- 
nomic security for American workers, 
in practice, increases the economic vul- 
nerability of women. In February 
1987, over two-thirds of people claim- 
ing unemployment benefits were men 
while women constituted less than 
one-third of unemployment insurance 
claimants. And only 3 percent of 
women receive the maximum unem- 
ployment benefit compared to 22 per- 
cent of unemployed men. 

The unemployment system protects 
"regular" workers— usually men- 
while it punishes less than full-time 
workers— usually women. Two-thirds 
of all part-time workers are women, 
yet in every State save six, regulations 
automatically disqualify applicants for 
unemployment compensation who 
limit their availability to part-time 
work. 

The dual responsibilities of working 
women as mothers and wage earners 
are also not recognized in unemploy- 
ment insurance laws. Theoretically, 
either a man or woman can leave em- 
ployment to raise a child or deal with 
a family crisis yet 99 percent of 'do- 
mestic" quits are by women. Six States 
expressly forbid unemployment insur- 
ance for domestic quits while 28 others 
restrict compensation for domestic or 
voluntary quits to those persons who 
leave jobs to follow a spouse. 

Sexual harassment, reported to 
affect 42 percent of women in the Fed- 
eral work force alone, often leads to 
job termination. However, many 
States do not consider quitting a job to 
escape sexual harassment a just cause 
for qualifying for unemployment in- 
surance. 

Mr. Speaker, as women continue to 
take an equal place beside men in the 
office, the factory and the unemploy- 
ment line, we in Congress must guar- 
antee that the laws we pass to protect 
workers protect every worker. 



APPOINTMENT OF CONFEREES 
ON H.R. 3, TRADE AND INTER- 
NATIONAL ECONOMIC POLICY 
REFORM ACT OF 1987 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speak- 
er, I ask unanimous consent to take 
from the Speaker's table the bill (H.R. 
3) to enhance the competitiveness of 
American industry, and for other pur- 
poses, with a Senate amendment 
thereto, disagree to the Senate amend- 
ment, and agree to the conference 
asked by the Senate. 

The SPEAKER. Is there obejction 
to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois? 

Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, I have at the 
desk a motion to instruct the confer- 



ees to accept the Senate language. It 
deals with the ban on finished Toshiba 
products from coming into the United 
States over the next 2 to 5 years. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. SOLOMON. Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the 
gentleman from Tennessee. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I also 
have a motion, a privileged motion to 
instruct. 

Mr. SOLOMON. Continuing my res- 
ervation, Mr. Speaker, I had hoped 
that the gentleman from Tennessee 
[Mr. Duncan], the ranking Republican 
member, would yield to me for the 
purpose of offering my motion to in- 
struct; however, I do understand there 
are problems. I do not want to hold up 
the actions of this House; but the 
truth is that we have been denied on a 
number of occasions through the 
Rules Committee and other areas 
from dealing with this terribly impor- 
tant subject. 

I would just ask the gentleman, in- 
stead of my offering this motion, what 
his intentions are with the conferees 
when they do meet. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Well, I would say in 
terms of my chairman, that will be a 
top priority of consideration. In fact, 
my motion now has in it that the na- 
tional defense will not be jeopardized, 
my motion to instruct. I am sure it is 
going to be one of the top subjects of 
the conference. 

Mr. SOLOMON. Continuing my res- 
ervation of objection, Mr. Speaker, I 
would just say that langauge certainly 
generically deals with exactly what I 
am talking about. If the Members of 
this House live up to that instruction, 
certainly I would hope to keep that 
Senate language in the bill. 

Mr. Speaker, the motion wnich I 
wanted to offer to H.R. 3 would in- 
struct the House conferees to accept 
the Senate language prohibiting the 
sale of Toshiba products in this coun- 
try for 2 to 5 years. This will be the 
first opportunity for the House to get 
on record, in any meaningful way, in 
support of the Toshiba import sanc- 
tions. 

The Toshiba motion to instruct will 
help stem the flow of militarily critical 
technology to the Soviet Union, with- 
out unnecessarily restricting exports. 

Since the Senate's 92-to-5 vote ap- 
proving sanctions against Toshiba and 
Kongsberg we have had the opportu- 
nity to carefully review the damage 
done to the national security, and it is 
even worst than we thought! 

DOD estimates the impact of the 
sale has allowed the Soviet Union to 
acquire the ability to produce quieter 
propellers for its submarine fleet reli- 
ably, repeatedly and in large numbers. 
The five milling machines and soft- 
ware produce "silent propeller" sub- 
marines able to penetrate the outer 
ring of U.S. coastal defenses. The 



equipment allows the Soviet subs to 
run so quietly that the United States 
advantage in detecting and tracking 
their fleet has been eliminated. Ac- 
cording to Fred Ikle, Under Secretary 
of Defense for Policy, it was a breach 
which will cost us billions to counter. 

Clearly, the sale of this sophisticat- 
ed milling equipment by Toshiba was 
one of the most damaging diversions 
in history. 

Toshiba officials have apologized for 
making these sales to the Soviet Union 
and the Government of Japan has 
spent thousands of dollars to run full 
page ads in United States newspapers 
to say they are sorry. Yet, the Ameri- 
can taxpayers are out tens of billions 
of dollars, and the very security of the 
NATO alliance has been placed in 
jeopardy. And now they say they are 
sorry. Well that's like getting hit by a 
Mack truck and the driver stopping 
just long enough to give you a Band- 
Aid. 

Mr. Speaker, because the ranking 
Republican, Mr. Duncan, included lan- 
guage in his motion to require House 
conferees to support all positions that 
would protect our national defense in- 
terests, I am satisfied that the Senate 
language dealing with Toshiba will be 
maintained; therefore I will net offer 
my motion and I withdraw my reserva- 
tion. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman. 

Mr. SOLOMON. Mr. Speaker, I 
withdraw my reservation of objection 
and I withdraw my motion to instruct. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from 
Illinois? 

There was no objection. 

MOTION TO INSTRUCT OFFERED BY MR. DUNCAN 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
motion to instruct conferees. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Mr. Duncan moves that the managers on 
the part of the House at the conference on 
the disagreeing votes between the two 
Houses on H.R. 3 are instructed to maintain 
strong support of the House position on all 
provisions that: 

(1) Advance the competitive position of 
U.S. industries and insure that unfairly 
traded goods and services do not either un- 
dermine America's industrial base and serv- 
ices industries or threaten American jobs; 

(2) Support enhanced negotiating author- 
ity for the U.S. Trade Representative so 
that he may pursue aggressively U.S. inter- 
ests in the Uruguay round; 

(3) Provide improvements in our trade 
laws ensuring that U.S. industries and work- 
ers will not have to suffer adverse effects of 
unfair trading practices and the national de- 
fense will not be jeopardized; and 

(4) Result in legislation that can be broad- 
ly supported by all interests. 

The SPEAKER. The gentleman 
from Tennessee [Mr. Duncan] is rec- 
ognized for 1 hour. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I think 
my motion to instruct is self-explana- 
tory. Essentially, it directs the manag- 





23028 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



ers on the part of the House to work 
hard for the interests on this Chamber 
in their negotiations with managers 
for the other body. 

Also, it directs House managers to 
keep in mind the interests and con- 
cerns of all of our citizens who have a 
big stake in this legislation. As far as I 
know, my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle should agree with the princi- 
ples set forth in the motion. 

I urge my colleagues to support it. 

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, for pur- 
poses of debate only, I yield to the 
gentleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I urge 
support of the motion as well, but I 
want to take this time to talk for a 
moment about the comments of the 
gentleman from New York [Mr. Solo- 
mon]. 

At least three committees of this 
House, and perhaps more, have begun 
some kind of hearing or internal dis- 
cussion on the problem of Toshiba. It 
is a very important one to our Ways 
and Means Committee, I would tell 
the House and the gentleman. 

We have had one long hearing, a,nd 
probably will have some others, and 
are trying to work the problem out as 
carefully as we can. 

We have solicited the help of Messrs. 
Wilson, Hunter, and Rowland, and 
others who have introduced bills in 
their own right, to help in putting 
ours together. At least for rny part, I 
take the matter very seriously. 

I think the problem extends beyond 
Toshiba, and therefor the solution 
must do so also. But, certainly that 
company and its transgression does re- 
quire some kind of punishment, so 
that we may show the world that we 
intend our Cocom regulations and our 
treaties of all kinds to be observed, 
fully by both us and by our trading 
partner companies. 

So I hope that will be the under- 
standing of this motion with respect to 
that element. 

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. 

Mr. DUNCAN. Mr. Speaker, I have 
no further requests for time, I yield 
back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the 
motion to instruct. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on 
the motion to instruct offered by the 
gentleman from Tennessee [Mr. 
Duncan]. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER. The Chair appoints 
the following conferees from the com- 
mittees designated and, without objec- 
tion, reserves the authority to make 
additional appointments of conferees 
and to specify particular portions of 
the House bill and Senate amendment 
as the subjects of the various appoint- 
ments. 



From the Committee on Ways and 
Means: Messrs. Rostenkowski, Gib- 
bons, and Duncan; 

From the Committee on Agriculture: 
Messrs. de la Garza, Brown of Califor- 
nia, and Roberts; 

From the Committee on Banking, 
Finance, and Urban Affairs: Messrs. St 
Germain, Fauntroy, and Wylie; 

From the Committee on Foreign Af- 
fairs: Messrs. Fascell, Bonker, and 
Broomfield; 

From the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce: Messrs. Dingell, Florio, 
and Lent; 

From the Committee on Education 
and Labor: Messrs. Hawkins, Ford of 
Michigan, and Jeffords; 

From the Committee on the Judici- 
ary: Messrs. Rodino, Kastenmeier, 
and Fish; 

From the Committee on Govern- 
ment Operations: Messrs. Brooks, 
Conyers, and Horton; 

From the Committee on Merchant 
Marine and Fisheries: Messrs. Jones of 
North Carolina, Biaggi, and Davis of 
Michigan; 

From the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation: Messrs. 
Mineta, Oberstar, and Hammer- 
schmidt; 

From the Committee on Small Busi- 
ness: Messrs. LaFalce, Smith of Iowa, 
and McDade; 

From the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology: Messrs. Roe, 
Walgren, and Lujan; and 

As an additional conferee: Mr. Gep- 
hardt. 

There was no objection. 



ANNOUNCEMENT OF ORGANIZA- 
TIONAL SESSION OF TRADE 
CONFERENCE TODAY AND OF 
MEETING OF CONFEREES ON 
DEBT CEILING 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speak- 
er, let me announce that there will be 
an organizational session of the trade 
conference today at 2 p.m. in the 
Cannon Caucus Room. 

Mr. Speaker, let me also announce 
that the conferees on the debt ceiling 
will convene in room 1100, Longworth 
Building, immediately. 



FEDERAL TRIANGLE 
DEVELOPMENT ACT 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee or. Public Works and Transporta- 
tion and the Committee on Interior 
and Insular Affairs be discharged from 
further consideration of the Senate 
bill (S. 1550) to complete the Federal 
Triangle in the District of Columbia, 
to construct a public building to pro- 
vide Federal office space and space for 
an international cultural and trade 
center, and for other purposes, and 
ask for its immediate consideration. 



The Clerk read the title of the 
Senate bill. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey? 

Mr. MOLINARI. Reserving the right 
to object, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend 
to object, but I yield to the gentleman 
from New Jersey [Mr. Howard] chair- 
man of the Public Works and Trans- 
portation Committee, for an explana- 
tion of the bill. 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, S. 1550, entitled "The 
Federal Triangle Development Act," 
authorizes completion of the Federal 
Triangle by providing for the con- 
struction of a Federal office complex 
and international cultural and trade 
center on the federally owned site at 
14th Street between Constitution and 
Pennsylvania Avenues, Washington, 
DC. This exciting proposal will mark 
the completion of the 25-year program 
for the redevelopment and reconstruc- 
tion of Pennsylvania Avenue, common- 
ly referred to as "The Avenue of the 
Presidents." The building will be built 
on a lease-to-own plan, whereby the 
Federal Government's lease payments 
over a 30-year lease term will pay for 
the cost of constructing the building. 
At the end of the 30 years, the Federal 
Government will own the building in 
fee simple. Title will revert to the Gov- 
ernment and no additional rental pay- 
ments will be necessary. This method 
of financing is estimated to save the 
Federal Government approximately 
$271 million over the 30-year lease 
term. 

Mr. Speaker, the primary agencies 
involved in planning and building this 
Federal complex will be the General 
Services Administration, the Pennsyl- 
vania Avenue Development Corpora- 
tion, and a Presidential Commission, 
the International Cultural and Trade 
Center Commission. The Department 
of State, National Capital Planning 
Commission and Commission of Fine 
Arts will have advisory roles. Safe- 
guards are built in throughout the leg- 
islation to ensure that the complex 
will be the best contemporary design 
and will be in harmony with other 
structures located on Pennsylvania 
Avenue. This site is the missing tooth 
in the smile of Pennsylvania Avenue 
which is being undertaken by Pennsyl- 
vania Avenue Development Corpora- 
tion. 

According to GSA's estimates the 
building will provide approximately 
1.9 million occupiable square feet; 1.4 
million square feet for Federal use and 
500,000 square feet for the Interna- 
tional Cultural and Trade Center. 

Mr. Speaker, in the 1960's the Feder- 
al Government stopped constructing 
Federal buildings due primarily to the 
large drain on the Federal budget in 
one particular year. Instead the Gov- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23029 



eminent turned to leasing, whereby 
only the annual lease payments are re- 
flected in the budget. However at the 
end of the lease term the taxpayers of 
this Nation are left with nothing but a 
handful of rent receipts. Further, the 
Government becomes a "captive 
tenant" of rental space since the Gov- 
ernment has no federally owned space 
to relocate into. Rents in the Nation's 
Capital have increased by 30 percent 
over the last 2 years and the annual 
Federal Government's rental bill is 
about $1.4 billion currently, up from 
approximately $400 million in 1980. It 
is projected the annual rental bill will 
escalate to $2 billion by 1992, unless 
Congress gives further direction to the 
administration to discontinue leasing, 
thus, the concept embodied in this leg- 
islation is most worthy. 

Mr. Speaker, passage of this legisla- 
tion will save the taxpayers of this 
Nation $271 million of a 30-year 
period— allow the Government to hold 
title to the building at the end of 30 
years, it will enhance opportunities for 
American trade, commerce, and cultur- 
al exchange— provide for the comple- 
tion of redevelopment of Pennsylvania 
Avenue and provide for the consolida- 
tion of agencies thereby avoiding sub- 
stantial duplicative costs. 

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Inte- 
rior and Insular Affairs has an interes : 
in this legislation to the extent that 
the Pennsylvania Avenue Develop- 
ment Corporation is involved. Thanks 
to the cooperation of the leadership of 
that committee, we are able to present, 
this matter to the House at this time. 

One of the concerns expressed by 
the members of the Interior Commit- 
tee involves the provisions in the bill 
for congressional review of the plan. 1 
want to assure my colleagues that the 
Interior Committee will be consulted 
when the development proposal is sub- 
mitted and that a copy of the proposal 
will be provided to the committee in a 
timely manner so that it may contrib- 
ute to the furtherance of this worth- 
while project. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge enactment of S. 
1550. 

D 1055 

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. 
Speaker, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MOLINARI. Under my reserva- 
tion of objection, I am glad to yield to 
the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. 
Hammerschmidt], the ranking Repub- 
lican. 

Mr. HAMMERSCHMIDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in support of S. 1550, legislation to construct 
a building for Federal office space and an 
International Cultural and Trade Center on the 
Federal Triangle. 

S. 1550 would provide for this facility to be 
constructed on Federal land at 14th Street 
and Pennsylvania Avenue now being used as 
a parking lot. The building, which the Federal 
Government would own following lease pay- 
ments over a 30-year lease term based on 



construction costs, would enable the Govern- 
ment to release approximately 15 leases 
which will be expiring in the next several 
years — leases that would have to be negotiat- 
ed at a much higher cost. GSA estimates that 
annual lease payments for this ouilding will be 
significantly lower than market rates and that 
a savings of $281 million over 30 years will be 
realized. 

This facility will enable the Departments of 
Justice, Treasury, and State to consolidate 
their office from numerous locations around 
the area, thereby allowing more efficient oper- 
ations and administrative cost savings. As a 
result of this building and other actions, the 
Department of the Treasury, currently in 38 lo- 
cations in Washington, will be reduced to 4. 
Justice, now in 26 locations, will be in 3 loca- 
tions. The Department of State, which is in 16 
different locations, will be reduced to 3. 

The International Cultural and Trade Center 
portion of the facility is an exciting venture 
which would promote trade and cultural op- 
portunities and would be instrumental in en- 
couraging, through diplomatic reciprocity, simi- 
lar treatment for the United States abroad. 

For several years, we have been faced with 
ever increasing leasing costs for the Federal 
Government and there is no end in sight 
unless we begin to consider innovative pro- 
posals such as that which we are considering 
today. It is clear that the limited resources of 
the Federal building funds do not allow out- 
right Federal construction and our leasing ex- 
penses will continue to grow in the future. 
This lease-to-own proposal is a creative ap- 
proach which will allow us to make annual 
lease payments leading to Federal ownership. 

Mr. Speaker, the Public Works and Trans- 
portation Committee has worked closely with 
the Senate on developing this legislation. I 
would urge my colleagues to join me in sup- 
porting this bill today. 

Mr. MOLINARI. Continuing under 
my reservation, Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
strong support of S. 1550, a bill to 
complete the Federal Triangle in the 
District of Columbia through the con- 
struction of a public building to pro- 
vide Federal office space and space for 
an International Cultural and Trade 
Center. The Subcommittee on Public 
Buildings and Grounds held a lengthy 
hearing on July 22 regarding this 
project on the last remaining site on 
the Federal Triangle at 14th Street 
and Pennsylvania Avenue. 

The Public Works and Transporta- 
tion Committee worked closely and 
most cooperatively with the Senate in 
developing this proposal. While the 
legislation may be designated as a 
Senate bill, it can truly be considered 
a joint House/Senate bill. 

S. 1550 provides for a building not to 
exceed 3.1 million gross square feet, 
which would be constructed on a lease- 
to-own basis. That is, the Federal Gov- 
ernment's lease payments over 30 
years would pay for the cost of con- 
struction. At the end of that time, title 
to the building would revert to the 
Federal Government. 

GSA estimates that the rental costs 
paid to the developer will be substan- 



tially less than the market rate for 
similar space. Savings of $281 million 
will be realized over the 30-year lease. 
And, of course, the Federal Govern- 
ment would own the building at the 
end of the 30 years. This is particular- 
ly important as the Government's 
annual rental bills continue to grow 
dramatically— up from $400 million in 
1970 to over $1 billion currently. Ap- 
proximately 50 percent of our Federal 
workers are in leased space. In the 
Washington area alone, the Govern- 
ment controls 65 million square feet of 
space and over 30 million square feet 
cf that is leased space. 

The building would provide 1.4 mil- 
lion occupyable square feet of office 
space to house several Federal agen- 
cies now located in leased space— pri- 
marily Justice, State, and Treasury. 
An International Cultural and Trade 
Center to be operated by a 15-member 
Federal commission would occupy up 
to 500,000 occupyable square feet. Un- 
derground parking facilities account 
for the remainder of the space. 

The Pennsylvania Avenue Develop- 
ment Corporation, which has done an 
outstanding job on the rehabilitation 
of Pennsylvania Avenue, would have 
primary responsibility for the develop- 
ment proposal, design competition and 
construction of the facility. The Cor- 
poration would work closely with GSA 
and the Commission in carrying out its 
duties. 

GSA would have a master lease with 
the developer for the entire facility 
and sublease space for the Interna- 
tional Cultural and Trade Center to 
the Commission. Should demand not 
match current expectations, GSA 
could reenter that space and utilize it 
as additional Federal office space. 

It is envisioned that the center will 
house foreign missions; international, 
State, and local agencies involved in 
international trade; Government-spon- 
sored organizations supporting cultur- 
al exchanges and contain exhibit 
space. The State Department has been 
extremely involved in this project and 
sees it as a means to provide attractive 
space to foreign missions which pro- 
vide us high quality space in their 
countries, and as a tool to secure simi- 
lar space for Americans abroad. The 
center will enhance opportunities for 
American trade, commerce, and cultur- 
al exchange. 

Mr. Speaker, this project has the 
support of the administration, GSA, 
the Departments of State, Commerce, 
Treasury, and Justice, the Office of 
the Trade Representative, the U.S. In- 
formation Agency, and OMB. It is an 
important step in moving away from 
the continued high cost of leasing 
space for the Federal Government. In 
addition, the development of this Fed- 
eral property, along with other ac- 
tions, will lead to major consolidations 
of Treasury, Justice, and State. With 










23030 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



such consolidations, greater efficiency 
will be realized. 

There are many benefits to gain 
from passage of S. 1550 and the devel- 
opment of an underutilized prime 
piece of Federal real estate. As was 
stated by the Pennsylvania Avenue 
Development Corporation at our sub- 
committee hearing last month, in ref- 
erence to the great transformation of 
Pennsylvania Avenue over the past 
several years: "But the parking lot on 
the south side of 14th Street and 
Pennsylvania Avenue is like the miss- 
ing tooth in a beautiful smile." 

Mr. Speaker, we have an opportuni- 
ty to remedy that situation and I 
would urge passage of S. 1550 by this 
House today. 

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. MOLINARI. Further reserving 
the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield to the gentleman from Florida. 

Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, the Sub- 
committee on Public Buildings and 
Grounds and the Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation, the chair- 
man and ranking members thereto 
should be congratulated for this land- 
mark piece of legislation. 

It is not only a landmark piece of 
legislation from the standpoint of the 
building and the square footage that is 
involved in this particular project, but 
it is also because of the unique financ- 
ing method that is being used. This 
method was used once before in the 
city of Miami, which is a project that I 
was associated with that is presently 
underway and moving forward. It gives 
the Federal Government an opportu- 
nity to expand its ownership of feder- 
ally occupied building space. 

The gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Molinari] stated to the committee 
the tremendous amount of space that 
is occupied as leased space by the Fed- 
eral Government. This I believe is 
truly a turning point, and I commend 
the gentleman from New York, the 
chairman of the subcommittee, the 
gentleman from American Samoa, and 
also the chairman of the full Commit- 
tee on Public Works and Transporta- 
tion, the gentleman from New Jersey 
[Mr. Howard], and the ranking 
member, the gentleman from Arkan- 
sas [Mr. Hammerschmidt], for bring- 
ing this legislation to the floor. I urge 
its adoption. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this 
legislation which would authorize the construc- 
tion of a Federal office building and an Inter- 
national Cultural and Trade Center on the 
Government-owned, Federal Triangle property 
in downtown Washington, DC. 

I would like to commend all of those who 
have been involved with this important and 
landmark legislation. 

This bill is a result of countless hours of 
work and represents a truly cooperative effort 
between the House, Senate, the administra- 
tion and the Washington business community. 



S. 1550 would provide for the construction 
of a 3.2 million square foot building complex 
to help complete the redevelopment of the 
Pennsylvania Avenue corridor. 

The construction, occupancy and use of this 
complex represents a new approach in our 
Federal buildings program. 

The facility will be designed and construct- 
ed using a competitive design competition, 
conducted by the Pennsylvania Avenue Devel- 
opment Corporation. 

The building is to be financed over a 30- 
year term with the Government making annual 
payments to amortize construction and devel- 
opment costs. 

At the end of the 30-year period, the build- 
ing would become part of GSA's Government- 
owned inventory. 

This is a new approach to the acquisition of 
space for Federal use which has been utilized 
on one other occasion in Miami, FL; which 
was a project with which I was pleased to be 
associated and one which I think will work out 
quite well from the Government's and the 
city's perspective. 

I urge my colleagues to support this legisla- 
tion which starts a new beginning for the Fed- 
eral building program. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. MOLINARI. Further reserving 
the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield to the gentleman from Minneso- 
ta. 

Mr. VENTO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
support of S. 1550, a bill to complete 
the Federal Triangle in the District of 
Columbia, to construct a public build- 
ing to provide Federal office space and 
space for an International Cultural 
and Trade Center. For many decades, 
plans have been discussed to use this 
prime parcel more constructively than 
for the parking lot it now is. This bill 
would make possible the construction 
of the International Cultural and 
Trade Center, and use this land so cen- 
trally located more appropriately. I 
want to commend subcommittee 
Chairman Sunia and the ranking 
member of the Public Works Commit- 
tee as well as the Chairman Howard. 

This International Trade and Cul- 
tural Center building would complete 
the revitalization of Pennsylvania 
Avenue, and consolidate various Fed- 
eral functions now dispersed. Key to 
the development of this site is the 
transfer of the property and the re- 
sponsibility for its development to the 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development 
Corporation. The site's planning, 
design, competitions, and construction 
management of the building would be 
under the Pennsylvania Avenue Devel- 
opment Corporation. The property 
would revert to the General Services 
Administration upon completion of 
the building. 

Mr. Golden, the Administrator for 
the GSA, has been in contact with me 
and pointed out the logical extension 
of the PADC for this development and 
indeed I concur. 



The Pennsylvania Avenue Develop- 
ment Corporation has been involved in 
similar projects since 1978 on the 
north side of Pennsylvania Avenue- 
buying property, acquiring rights of 
way, holding design competitions, and 
working with developers. This building 
is proposed to be completed within a 
4-year cycle before being turned over 
to the General Services Administra- 
tion who will manage the property 
after that. 

Given the accomplishments of the 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development 
Corporation in the past few years, 
giving them this additional responsi- 
bility will serve the needs of this city 
and the Federal Government. I want 
to emphasize that any and all con- 
struction in this site must be compati- 
ble with the existing buildings, and 
serve to enhance them. Designs must 
be compatible with the dignity of this 
core area. The Federal Triangle is rec- 
ognized for its present design and its 
significance. Respect must be given to 
the existing buildings by any future 
one. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I look for- 
ward to being part of this process and 
in working to ensure that our Nation's 
Capital reflects our Nation's pride and 
carefully reviewing the reports that 
will be submitted to both committees 
of jurisdiction concerning the Pennsyl- 
vania Avenue Development Corpora- 
tion actions concerning this project, 
the Interior and Insular Affairs Com- 
mittee and the Public Works Commit- 
tee 

Mr. MOLINARI. Mr. Speaker, I 
think this is an exciting proposal. 

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva- 
tion of objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Kildee). Is there objection to the re- 
quest of the gentleman from New 
Jersey? 

There was no objection. 

The Clerk read the Senate bill, as 
follows: 

S. 1550 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Federal Tri- 
angle Development Act". 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

(a) Findings.— The Congress finds and de- 
clares that— 

(1) it is in the national interest to build a 
Federal building complex and establish an 
international cultural and trade center on 
the Federal Triangle property in the Dis- 
trict of Columbia; 

(2) development of such a Federal build- 
ing complex will permit consolidation of a 
number of Federal agencies which are cur- 
rently housed in numerous, scattered loca- 
tions and will enable more economical and 
efficient use of building space and environs: 

(3) inclusion of an international cultural 
and trade center within the Federal build- 
ing complex will create and enhance oppor- 
tunities for American trade, commerce, com- 
munications, and cultural exchanges with 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23031 



other nations and complement the work of 
Federal, State, and local agencies in the 
areas of international trade and cultural ex- 
change; and 

(4) the appropriate development, mainte- 
nance, and use of the Federal Triangle prop- 
erty should be a joint development effort of 
the General Services Administration, the 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corpo- 
ration, and the International Cultural and 
Trade Center Commission. 

(b) Purposes.— The purposes of this Act 
are as follows: 

(1) To transfer the Federal Triangle prop- 
erty from the Administrator of General 
Services to the Pennsylvania Avenue Devel- 
opment Corporation. 

(2) To grant to the Corporation the power 
of eminent domain to acquire certain prop- 
erties and rights-of-way adjacent to the Fed- 
eral Triangle site and to authorize the Cor- 
poration to exercise such power as may be 
necessary to further the public interest. 

(3) To authorize the Corporation, after 
consultation with the Secretary of State, 
the Administrator, and the Commission, to 
prepare plans for development of such prop- 
erty. 

(4) To establish a process for review and 
selection of such plans and, after comple- 
tion of such review process, to authorize the 
Corporation to enter into an agreement 
with a private developer selected for the de- 
velopment of such property. 

(5) To ensure that the design and con- 
struction of the Federal building complex 
on such property will insofar as practicable 
be in accordance with the guiding principles 
for Federal architecture recommended by 
the Committee on Federal Office Space in 
1962 which require among other things that 
facilities to be used by Federal agencies be 
efficient and economical and that public 
buildings provide visual testimony to the 
dignity, enterprise, vigor, and stability of 
the Federal Government. 

(6) To provide for establishment, oper- 
ation, and maintenance of a self-sustaining 
international cultural and trade center in 
such complex. 

SEC. 3. FEDERAL TRIANGLE PROPERTY. 

(a) Transfer to PADC— 

(1) General rule.— Subject to such terms 
and conditions as the Administrator and the 
Corporation may establish, the Administra- 
tor shall transfer, without compensation, to 
the Corporation title to the Federal Trian- 
gle property for development under this 
Act. 

(2) Duration of transfer.— Title to the 
Federal Triangle property shall revert to 
the Administrator at such time as the Ad- 
ministrator and the Corporation agree but 
not later than the date on which ownership 
of the building to be constructed on such 
property under section 5 vests in the United 
States. On and after such date, title to such 
building shall be in the Administrator. 

(3) Legal description.— The exact acreage 
and legal description of the Federal Trian- 
gle property shall be based upon surveys 
which are satisfactory to the Administrator 
and the Corporation. 

(b) Adjoining Property and Rights-of- 
Way.- 

(1) Acquisition.— The Corporation may 
acquire by purchase, exchange, condemna- 
tion, or otherwise such additional property 
or improvements or interest therein (includ- 
ing any portion of any street, roadway, 
highway, alley, or right-of-way and any 
easements to and air rights on or above any 
public lands or rights-of-way) as are neces- 



sary for development of the Federal Trian- 
gle property. 

(2) Transfer to gsa.— At the time title to 
the Federal Triangle property reverts to the 
Administrator under subsection (a), the Cor- 
poration shall transfer to the Administra- 
tor, without compensation, title to any 
property or interest therein acquired under 
this subsection and improvements thereon. 

SEC. 4. DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL. 

(a) Preparation and Contents.— The Cor- 
poration shall prepare a written proposal 
for development of the Federal Triangle 
property which shall include, but not be 
limited to. the following: 

(DA narrative description of the building 
to be constructed on the Federal Triangle 
property, including a description of the 
types of uses both public and private to be 
permitted in the building. 

(2) A comprehensive plan prepared by the 
Administrator for providing space for Feder- 
al officers and employees in the building. 

(3) A plan for inclusion of an international 
cultural and trade center comprising not to 
exceed 500,000 occupiable square feet, in- 
cluding a leasing plan prepared by the Com- 
mission for occupancy of such center and a 
plan for permitting conversion of space not 
used for such center to office space. 

(4) A comprehensive plan for providing se- 
curity for the building and its occupants 
and contents. 

(5) A comprehensive plan for providing 
parking for motor vehicles of occupants of 
and visitors to the building and for provid- 
ing access to the building by delivery and 
service vehicles. 

(6) A statement prepared by the Adminis- 
trator of rents and other housing costs cur- 
rently being paid by the United States for 
Federal agencies to be housed in the build- 
ing. 

(7) Design criteria for the building. 

(8) An estimate of the cost of construction 
of the building and of the annual cost to the 
United States of leasing the building under 
section 6. 

(9) Environmental impact documentation 
for development of the Federal Triangle 
property under Federal laws and regula- 
tions. 

(10) /in analysis of the economic impact in 
the metropolitan area which includes the 
District of Columbia of development of the 
Federal Triangle property. 

(11) terms and conditions approved by the 
Administrator for inclusion in the lease 
agreement under section 6. 

(b) Limitations. — 

(1) Size of building.— The building (in- 
cluding parking facilities) to be constructed 
on the Federal Triangle property may not 
exceed 3,100,000 gross square feet in size. 

(2) Height of building.— The height of 
the building shall be compatible with the 
height of surrounding Government build- 
ings. 

(3) Design.— The building shall be de- 
signed in harmony with historical and Gov- 
ernment buildings in the vicinity, shall re- 
flect the symbolic importance and historic 
character of Pennsylvania Avenue and the 
Nation's Capital, and shall represent the 
dignity and stability of the Federal Govern- 
ment. 

(c) Consultation Requirement.— In pre- 
paring the development proposal under sub- 
section (a), the Corporation shall consult 
the Secretary of State, the Administrator, 
and the Commission. 

(d) Duties of the Administrator and 
Commission.— 



(1) Administrator.— The Administrator 
shall prepare and submit to the Corporation 
for inclusion in the development proposal 
under subsection (a)— 

(A) a comprehensive plan for providing 
space for Federal officers and employees in 
the building to be constructed on the Feder- 
al Triangle property; 

(B) a statement of rents and other hous- 
ing costs currently being paid by the United 
States for Federal agencies to be housed in 
the building; and 

(C) a list of terms and conditions which 
the Administrator has approved for inclu- 
sion in the lease agreement to be entered 
into under section 6. 

(2) Commission.— The Commission shall 
prepare and submit to the Corporation for 
inclusion in the development proposal under 
subsection (a) a leasing plan for occupancy 
of the international cultural and trade 
center under section 8. 

(e) Review and Approval of Development 
Proposal by GSA and Others.— 

(1) Submission for review. — As soon as 
practicable but not later than 365 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Corporation shall submit the development 
proposal prepared under subsection (a) to 
the General Services Administration, the 
Commission, the National Capital Planning 
Commission, and the Commission of Fine 
Arts. 

(2) Approval or recommended modifica- 
tions.— Not later than 60 days after the 
date of submission of the development pro- 
posal under paragraph (1), each governmen- 
tal entity referred to in paragraph (1) shall 
notify the Corporation of approval or rec- 
ommended modifications of the develop- 
ment proposal. If such governmental entity 
does not notify the Corporation of its ap- 
proval or recommended modifications of the 
proposal within such 60-day period, such 
governmental entity shall be deemed to 
have approved the proposal. 

(3) Consultation.— In the event a govern- 
mental entity referred to in paragraph (1) 
submits recommended modifications of the 
development proposal within the 60-day 
period described in paragraph (2), the Cor- 
poration shall consult such entity regarding 
such modifications and may modify such 
proposal to take into account one or more of 
such recommended modifications. 

(f) Submission for Congressional 
Review.— Not later than 150 days after the 
date of submission of the development pro- 
posal to governmental entities under subsec- 
tion (e)(1), the Corporation shall submit to 
the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation of the 
House of Representatives for review and ap- 
proval the development proposal with any 
modifications made under subsection (e)(3), 
a statement of the areas of difference be- 
tween such proposal and the recommended 
modifications of each such governmental 
entity, and the views of the Corporation 
with respect to such differences. 

(g) Funding.— Not later than 60 days after 
the date of the enactment of this Act, the 
Administrator shall transfer from amounts 
appropriated to the Administrator $800,000 
to the Corporation for carrying out this sec- 
tion. 

SEC. 5. CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING. 

(a) Selection Process.— 

(1) General rule.— Upon approval of the 
development proposal submitted under sec- 
tion 4(f) by resolutions adopted by the Com- 
mittee on Environment and Public Works of 




23032 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



the Senate and the Committee on Public 
Works of the House of Representatives, the 
Corporation in accordance with its policies 
and procedures for a development competi- 
tion, shall select a person to develop the 
Federal Triangle property. 

(2) Consultation requirement.— In select- 
ing a person to develop the Federal Triangle 
property, the Corporation shall consult the 
Administrator and the Commission. 

(3) Competition.— The Corporation shall 
conduct a competition for selection of a 
person to develop the Federal Triangle 
property. Such competition shall be con- 
ducted in accordance with the existing poli- 
cies and procedures of the Corporation for a 
development competition. 

(4) Prohibition on payments for bids and 
designs.— The Corporation may not make 
any payment to any person for any bid or 
design proposal under the competition con- 
ducted under this subsection. 

(b) Development Agreement.— 

(1) Authority to enter.— The Corpora- 
tion may enter into an agreement for the 
development of the Federal Triangle prop- 
erty in accordance with the development 
proposal approved under subsection (a) with 
the person selected to develop the Federal 
Triangle property. 

(2) Contents.— The development agree- 
ment under paragraph (1) shall at a mini- 
mum provide for the following: 

(A) The construction of a building on the 
Federal Triangle property in accordance 
with the architectural plans and specifica- 
tions selected under the development com- 
petition. 

(B) Ownership of such property and build- 
ing will be by the United States; except that 
the person selected under subsection (a) 
may own such building for a term not to 
exceed 35 years beginning on the date on 
which construction of such building com- 
mences. 

(C) The Administrator to lease such build- 
ing from such person for the term deter- 
mined under subparagraph (B). 

(D) Inspection of such building during 
construction by the Administrator and the 
Corporation. 

The agreement shall include a copy of the 
lease agreement and technical directives 
and specifications prepared by the Adminis- 
trator and entered into by the Administra- 
tor and such person under section 6. 

(c) Connection With Rail System.— The 
building to be constructed under this sec- 
tion may be connected with the rapid rail 
system operated by the Washington Metro- 
politan Area Transit Authority via a station 
located on the Federal Triangle property. 
The construction cost of making such con- 
nection shall be the responsibility of the 
person selected to develop the Federal Tri- 
angle property. The Washington Metropoli- 
tan Transit Authority may not charge any 
fee or other amount for the connection of 
such building to such rail system. 

(d) Construction Standards and Inspec- 
tion.— The building constructed under this 
section shall meet all standards applicable 
to construction of a Federal building. 
During construction, the Administrator and 
the Corporation shall conduct periodic in- 
spections of such building for the purpose 
of assuring that such standards are being 
met. 

(e) Treatment of PADC— For purposes of 
any State or local law (including laws relat- 
ing to taxation and building permits and in- 
spections), the Corporr.tion with respect to 
development of the Federal Triangle prop- 
erty shall be treated as the General Services 



Administration is treated with respect to ac- 
quisition and construction of a Federal 
building. 

(f) Applicability of Certain Laws.— Any 
person who enters into an agreement with 
the Corporation under subsection (b) for de- 
velopment of the Federal Triangle property 
shall not, with respect to such development, 
be subject to any State or local law relating 
to building permits and building inspection. 
Such property and any improvements to 
such property shall not be subject to real 
and personal property taxation, or special 
assessments. 

(g) Treatment of Federal Triangle De- 
velopment Area.— For purposes of the 
Pennsylvania Avenue Development Corpo- 
ration Act of 1972 (other than section 5), 
the Federal Triangle development area shall 
be treated as being a part of the develop- 
ment area described in section 2(f) of such 
Act (40 U.S.C. 871(f)). The Corporation 
shall have the same authority with respect 
to the Federal Triangle development area as 
it has with respect to the development area 
described in such section 2(f). 

(h) Powers of the Corporation.— The 
Corporation shall have with respect to its 
duties under this Act any powers which the 
Corporation has under section 6 (other than 
paragraph (9) and (10)) of the Pennsylvania 
Avenue Development Corporation Act of 
1972 (40 U.S.C. 875) with respect to its 
duties under such Act. The Corporation 
may enter into agreements with any Federal 
agency or the Commission with respect to 
this Act, or as permitted or authorized by 31 
U.S.C. 1535. 

(i) Authorization of Appropriation.— 
There is authorized to be appropriated, 
from the fund established by section 210(f) 
of the Federal Property and Administrative 
Services Act of 1949 (40 U.S.C. 490(f)), to 
the Administrator for transfer to the Corpo- 
ration for carrying out this section and sec- 
tion 4 $3,700,000 for fiscal year 1988. Such 
sums shall remain available until expended. 

SEC. 6. LEASE OF BUILDING BY GSA. 

(a) Entry Into Agreement.— Before the 
development agreement is entered into 
under section 5, the Administrator shall 
enter into with the person selected to con- 
struct the building under section 5 an agree- 
ment for the lease of such building for Fed- 
eral office space and the international cul- 
tural and trade center space. 

(b) Terms of Agreement.— The agreement 
entered into under this section shall include 
at a minimum the following terms: 

(1) The Administrator will lease the build- 
ing for the term that the person selected to 
construct the building owns the building. 

(2) The rental rate per square foot of oc- 
cupiable space for all space in the building 
will be in the best interest of the United 
States and carry out the objectives of this 
Act, but in no case may the aggregate rental 
rate for all space in the building produce an 
amount less than the amount necessary to 
amortize the cost of development of the 
Federal Triangle property over the term of 
the lease. 

(3) Obligations of funds from the Federal 
Building Fund shall only be made on an 
annual basis to meet lease payments. 

(4) The Administrator will be permitted to 
sublease to the Commission for establish- 
ment, operation, and management of the 
international cultural and trade center 
under section 8. 

(c) Accounting System.— The Administra- 
tor shall maintain an accounting system for 
operation and maintenance of the building 
to be constructed under section 5 which will 



permit accurate projections of the dates and 
the costs of major repairs, improvements, 
reconstructions, and replacements of such 
building and other capital expenditures on 
such building. The Administrator shall take 
such action as may be necessary to assure 
that funds are available to cover such pro- 
jected costs and expenditures. 

(d) Obligation of Funds.— Obligation of 
funds to make lease payments under this 
section may only be made on an annual 
basis and from amounts in the fund estab- 
lished by section 210(f) of the Federal Prop- 
erty and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
(40 U.S.C. 490(f)). 

SEC. 7. INTERNATIONAL CULTURAL AND TRADE 
CENTER COMMISSION. 

(a) Establishment.— There is established 
a commission to be known as the Interna- 
tional Cultural and Trade Center Commis- 
sion. 

(b) Duties of Commission.— The duties of 
the Commission are as follows: 

(1) To participate in accordance with sec- 
tion 4 in the planning of the building to be 
constructed under section 5. 

(2) To enter into an agreement with the 
Administrator under section 8 for the lease 
of space in the building constructed under 
section 5 for establishment, operation, and 
maintenance of an international cultural 
and trade center. 

(3) To operate and manage any space 
leased under section 8 in accordance with 
the objectives of this Act. 

'4) To prepare under section 8 an annual 
report on the operation and management of 
such space. 

(c) Membership.— 

(1) Number and appointment.— The Com- 
mission shall be composed of 15 members as 
follows: 

(A) The Secretary of State or his delegate. 

(B) The Secretary of Commerce or his del- 
egate. 

(C) The Secretary of Agriculture or his 
delegate. 

(D) The United States Trade Representa- 
tive or his delegate. 

(E) The Administrator or his delegate. 

(F) The Director of the United States In- 
formation Agency or his delegate. 

(G) The Chairman of the Corporation or 
his delegate. 

(H) The Mayor of the District of Colum- 
bia or his delegate. 

(1) The Chairman of the National Endow- 
ment for the Arts or his delegate. 

(J) 6 individuals appointed by the Presi- 
dent one of whom shall be a resident and 
registered voter of the District of Columbia 
and all of whom shall be specially qualified 
to serve on the Commission by virtue of 
their education, training, or experience in 
international trade, commerce, cultural ex- 
change, finance, business, or management 
of facilities similar to the international cul- 
tural and trade center described in section 8. 
A vacancy in the Commission shall be filled 
in the manner in which the original ap- 
pointment was made. 

(2) Terms.— 

(A) General rule.— Except as provided in 
subparagraph (B), the terms of office of the 
private sector Members first taking office 
shall begin on the date of the enactment of 
this Act and shall expire as designated at 
the time of appointment, two at the end of 
two years, two at the end of four years, and 
two at the end of six years. 

(B) Filling a vacancy.— Any member of 
the Commission appointed to fill a vacancy 
occurring before the expiration of the term 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23033 



for which his predecessor was appointed 
shall be appointed only for the remainder of 
such term. A member may serve after the 
expiration of his term until his successor 
has taken office. 

(3) Pay.— Members of the Commission 
shall serve without pay; except that any 
member of the Commission appointed under 
paragraph <1)(J) shall while attending meet- 
ings of and attending hearings held by the 
Commission be entitled to travel or trans- 
portation expenses in accordance with sec- 
tion 5703 of title 5, United States Code. 

(4) Quorum.— 8 members of the Commis- 
sion shall constitute a quorum but a lesser 
number may hold hearings. 

(5) Designation of chairman.— The Chair- 
man and Vice Chairman of the Commission 
shall be designated by the President; except 
that the Chairman may only be designated 
from individuals appointed under paragraph 
(1KJ). 

(6) Meetings.— The Commission shall 
meet at the call of the Chairman but no less 
often than every 4 months. 

(d) Staff of Commission.— 

(1) General rule.— The Commission shall 
have a staff, including an executive director. 
Such staff shall be composed of individuals 
who may either be appointed under para- 
graph (2) or detailed under paragraph (3); 
except that the staff of the Commission 
may not at any time be composed of more 
than 15 individuals. 

(2) Authority to appoint.— The Commis- 
sion may appoint and fix the pay of not to 
exceed 10 individuals, including an individ- 
ual to serve as the executive director of the 
Commission. Staff appointed under this 
paragraph shall be appointed subject to the 
provisions of title 5, United States Code, 
governing appointments in the competitive 
service, and shall be paid in accordance with 
the provisions of chapter 51 and subchapter 
III of chapter 53 of such title relating to 
classification and General Schedule pay 
rates; except that— 

(A) the individual appointed to serve as 
the executive director and one other individ- 
ual appointed to the staff of the Commis- 
sion may be appointed and compensated 
without regard to such provisions; and 

(B) the pay of any individual (other than 
the 2 individuals referred to subparagraph 
(A)) appointed under this paragraph shall 
be at a rate not to exceed the maximum 
rate of basic pay payable for GS-17 of the 
General Schedule. 

(3) Detail.— Subject to paragraph (1), 
upon request of the Commission, the Secre- 
tary of State, the Secretary of Commerce, 
the Secretary of Agriculture, the Special 
Trade Representative, the Administrator, 
and the Director of the United States Infor- 
mation Agency may detail, on a reimbursa- 
ble basis, such of the personnel of the de- 
partment or agency such person heads as 
may be necessary to assist the Commission 
in carrying out its duties under this Act. 

(e) Office Space and Supplies.— Upon re- 
quest of the Commission, the Secretary of 
State, the Secretary of Commerce, the Sec- 
retary of Agriculture, the Special Trade 
Representative, the Administrator, and the 
Director of the United States Information 
Agency may provide, on a reimbursable 
basis, such office space, supplies, equipment, 
and other support services as may be neces- 
sary for the Commission to carry out its 
duties under this Act. 

(f ) Powers of Commission.— 

(1) Hearings and sessions.— The Commis- 
sion may, for the purpose of carrying out its 
duties under this Act, hold such hearings, 



sit and act at such times and places, take 
such testimony, and receive such evidence, 
as the Commission considers appropriate. 

(2) Powers of members and agents.— Any 
member or agent of the Commission may, if 
so authorized by the Commission, take any 
action which the Commission is authorized 
to take by this subsection. 

(3) Obtaining official data.— The Com- 
mission may obtain from any department or 
agency of the United States information 
necessary to enable it to carry out its duties 
under this Act. Upon request of the Chair- 
man of the Commission, the head of such 
department or agency shall furnish such in- 
formation to the Commission. 

(4) Gifts.— The Commission may accept, 
use, and dispose of gifts or donations of 
services or property. 

(5) Mails.— The Commission may use the 
United States mails in the same manner and 
under the same conditions as other depart- 
ments and agencies of the United States. 

(6) Authority to contract out.— Subject 
to applicable provisions of law, the Commis- 
sion may enter into such contracts or agree- 
ments as the Commission considers appro- 
priate to carry out any of its duties under 
this Act. 

(7) Experts and consultants.— The Com- 
mission may procure temporary and inter- 
mittent services under section 3109(b) of 
title 5 of the United States Code. 

(g) Limitation on Expenses.— 

(1) Maximum amount.— The maximum 
amount of expenses (including salaries, 
travel expenses, expenses for temporary and 
intermittent services, expenses under con- 
tracts or agreements entered into under sub- 
section (f)(7), and supply expenses) which 
the Commission may incur in any fiscal year 
may not exceed $1,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

(2) Adjustment for inflation.— Any 
dollar amount referred to in this subsection, 
subsection (h)(3), and section 8(d) may be 
adjusted by the Commission annually to re- 
flect a percentage increase or decrease in 
the Consumer Price Index for All Urban 
Consumers for the preceding calendar year, 
as determined by the United States Depart- 
ment of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 

(h) Funding.— 

(1) Requests for transfers.— If the Com- 
mission incurs any expenses in carrying out 
its duties under this Act, the Commission 
may request the Secretary of State, the Ad- 
ministrator, or any other Federal official re- 
ferred to in subsection (c)(1) to transfer to 
the Commission an amount equal to such 
expenses from funds appropriated to such 
official. 

(2) Authority for transfers.— Subject to 
paragraphs (3) and (5), any official referred 
to in paragraph (1) may transfer such 
amounts from funds appropriated to such 
official as may be necessary to enable the 
Commission to carry out its duties under 
this Act. 

(3) Maximum amount of requests and 
transfers.— The aggregate amount of re- 
quests for transfers, and the aggregate 
amount of transfers, under this subsection 
may not exceed $1,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

(4) Deposit of receipts.— The Commission 
shall deposit all amounts it receives under 
this subsection into the account established 
by section 8(d). 

(5) Limitation on effect.— This subsec- 
tion shall not be effective with respect to 
any fiscal year beginning after the last day 
of the 2-year period beginning on the first 
day the Commission deposits under section 
8(c) funds into the account established by 
section 8(d). 



SEC. 8. OPERATION AND MANAGEMENT OF INTER- 
NATIONAL CULTURAL AND TRADE 
CENTER. 

(a) Lease of Space.— 

(1) Agreement.— The Administrator and 
the Commission shall enter into an agree- 
ment for the Commission to lease from the 
Administrator not to exceed 500,000 square 
feet of occupiable space in the building to 
be constructed under section 5 to serve as an 
international cultural and trade center. 

(2) Size.— The Commission shall deter- 
mine the amount of space necessary for op- 
eration of the international cultural and 
trade center based upon demand, except 
that such space may not exceed 500,000 
square feet of occupiable space. Upon certi- 
fication of such demand by the Commission, 
the Administrator shall lease such amount 
of space to the Commission. 

(3) Terms.— The agreement entered into 
under this subsection shall include at a 
maximum the following terms: 

(A) The Commission will be permitted to 
sublease its space in such building to foreign 
missions, commercial establishments spon- 
sored by foreign governments, and interna- 
tional cultural and trade organizations, in- 
cluding domestic organizations and State 
and local governments. 

(B) All space leased by the Commission 
from the Administrator will be at such rate 
as the Administrator and the Commission 
may agree but not less than the rate estab- 
lished under section 6(b)(2) plus such 
amount as the Administrator determines is 
necessary to pay on an annual basis for the 
costs of administering such building (includ- 
ing operation, maintenance, and rehabilita- 
tion costs) which are attributable to such 
space. 

(C) Such terms relating to default and 
nonperformance as the Administrator con- 
siders appropriate to protect the interests of 
the United States. 

(b) Establishment of Center.— 

(1) By commission.— The Commission 
shall establish, operate, and maintain an 
international cultural and trade center in 
the space leased from the Administrator 
under subsection (a). 

(2) Contents.— The international cultural 
and trade center may include the following: 

(A) Office space for foreign missions and 
domestic and international organizations in- 
volved in international trade or cultural ac- 
tivities. 

(B) A world exhibition center providing 
space for exhibits from foreign nations. 

(C) An international bazaar providing 
space for commercial establishments spon- 
sored by foreign governments. 

(D) An international center providing a 
centralized foreign trade reference facility, 
conference and meeting facilities, and 
audio-visual facilities for translating foreign 
languages. 

(E) Such other facilities as are consistent 
with the objectives of this section. 

(3) Subleasing of space.— 

(A) Agreements.— The Commission may 
enter into agreements with foreign missions 
and international cultural and trade organi- 
zations (including domestic organizations 
and State and local governments) to sub- 
lease any or all of the space it leased from 
the Administrator under subsection (a). 
Space subleased to such missions and orga- 
nizations may only be used for establish- 
ment of trade centers and exhibitions, of- 
fices, and commercial establishments de- 
scribed in paragraph (2) and such other fa- 
cilities as the Commission determines are 



23034 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



consistent with an international cultural 
and trade center. 

(B) Terms and conditions.— An agreement 
entered into under this subsection shall be 
subject to such terms and conditions as the 
Commission determines are appropriate to 
carry out the objectives of this Act. The 
rental rate per square foot of occupiable 
space for space subleased under this subsec- 
tion shall be determined in accordance with 
subsection (c); except that the Commission 
may adjust such rate with respect to any 
space subleased to a foreign mission in ac- 
cordance with the recommendations of the 
Secretary of State acting in accordance with 
section 204(b) of the State Department 
Basic Authorities Act of 1956 (22 U.S.C. 
4304(b)). The Secretary of State may reim- 
burse the Commission for any expenses 
which are incurred by the Commission as a 
result of making adjustments in the rental 
rate for space under this subparagraph. 

(4) Reference facility and cultural 
events.— The Commission may establish in 
a portion of the space leased from the Ad- 
ministrator under this section a centralized 
foreign trade reference facility and confer- 
ence and meeting facilities and audio-visual 
facilities for translating foreign languages. 
The Commission may permit cultural events 
and other activities to be held in a portion 
of such space. The Commission shall estab- 
lish in accordance with subsection (c) fees 
and charges for — 

(A) the use of such facilities and auditori- 
um, and 

(B) the holding of such events and activi- 
ties. 

(c) Rents and Fees.— 

(1) Establishment of amount.— The Com- 
mission shall establish the amounts of fees 
under subsection (b)(4), and establish a 
rental rate for space subleased under sub- 
section (b)(3), taking into account the objec- 
tives of this section and the best interests of 
the United States. In any fiscal year begin- 
ning after the last day of the 2-year period 
beginning on the first day the Commission 
deposits under this subsection funds into 
the account established under subsection 
(d), the aggregate amount of such fees and 
rent shall not be less than the cost to the 
Commission of subleasing space from the 
Administrator under subsection (a) in such 
fiscal year plus the expenses (including sala- 
ries, travel expenses, expenses for terrnpor- 
ary and intermittent services, expenses 
under contracts or agreements entered into 
under subsection 7(f)(7), supply expenses 
and any reimbursable expenses) incurred by 
the Commission in carrying out its duties 
under this Act in such fiscal year. 

(2) Collection.— The Commission shall 
collect— 

(A) rent for space subleased under subsec- 
tion (b); and 

(B) fees and charges under subsection (b). 

(3) Deposit.— The Commission shall de- 
posit all amounts collected under this sub- 
section and all amounts transferred by the 
Secretary of State to the Commission under 
subsection (b)(3)(B) into the account estab- 
lished under subsection (d). 

(d) Separate Account.— 

(1) Establishment.— There is established 
in the Treasury of the United States a sepa- 
rate account. 

(2) Contents.— The account shall include 
all amounts deposited by the Commission 
under subsection (c) and section 7(h). 

(3) Availability.— Amounts in the ac- 
count established under this subsection 
shall be available to the Commission to 
pay— 



(A) all rents owed to the Administrator 
for lease of space under subsection (a); and 

(B) all expenses (including salaries, travel 
expenses, expenses for temporary and inter- 
mittent services, expenses under contracts 
or agreements entered into under section 
7(f)(7), and supply expenses) incurred by 
the Commission in carrying out its duties 
under this Act but not exceeding $1,000,000 
in any fiscal year. 

(4) Payments.— The Commission shall 
pay, from amounts in the account estab- 
lished by this subsection— 

(A) for lease of space under subsection (a) 
on an annual basis amounts owed to the Ad- 
ministrator for deposit into the fund estab- 
lished by section 210(f) of the Federal Prop- 
erty and Administrative Services Act of 1949 
(40 U.S.C. 490(f)); and 

(3) all expenses incurred by it in carrying 
out its duties under this Act but not exceed- 
ing $1,000,000 in any fiscal year. 

(5) Transfer of excess funds.— Periodical- 
ly, but not less often than once per fiscal 
year, funds which the Commission deter- 
mines are in excess of those needed to make 
the payments described in paragraph (4) 
shall be transferred by the Commission 
from the account established under this 
subsection to the fund established under 
section 210(f) of the Federal Property and 
Administrative Services Act of 1949 (40 
U.S.C. 490(f)). 

(h) Annual Report and Budget.— The 
Commission shall prepare and transmit to 
the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works of the Senate and the Committee on 
Public Works and Transportation of the 
House of Representatives (1) an annual 
report in January of each calendar year on 
the operation and management of the space 
leased by the Commission under subsection 
(a) and the international cultural and trade 
center, and (2) a budget for such fiscal year 
for operation, maintenance, and alteration 
of such center, including amounts received 
and projected to be received by the Commis- 
sion in such fiscal year and expenses in- 
curred and projected to be incurred by the 
Commission in such fiscal year. 

SEC. 9. DESIGNATION OF DEPARTMENTAL AUDITO- 
RIUM. 

>a) The Departmental Auditorium, located 
on the Federal Triangle between the 
Custom Service building and Interstate 
Commerce Commission building on Consti- 
tution Avenue, shall hereafter be known 
and designated as the "Andrew W. Mellon 
Auditorium". 

(b) Any reference in any law, regulation, 
document, record, map or other paper of 
the United States to the auditorium re- 
ferred to in subsection (a) is deemed to be a 
reference to the "Andrew W. Mellon Audito- 
rium". 

SEC. 10. DEFINITIONS. 

As used in this Act— 

(1) Administrator.— The term "Adminis- 
trator" means the Administrator of General 
Services. 

(2) Commission.— The term "Commission" 
means the International Cultural and Trade 
Center Commission established by section 7. 

(3) Corporation.— The term "Corpora- 
tion" means the Pennsylvania Avenue De- 
velopment Corporation. 

(4) Federal triangle development area.— 
The term "Federal Triangle development 
area" means the area which begins at a 
point on the southwest corner of the inter- 
section of Fourteenth Street and Pennsylva- 
nia Avenue (formerly E Street), Northwest; 
thence southerly along the west side of 
Fourteenth Street to the northwest corner 



of the intersection of Fourteenth Street and 
Constitution Avenue, Northwest; thence 
easterly along the north side of Constitu- 
tion Avenue to the northeast corner of the 
intersection of Twelfth Street and Constitu- 
tion Avenue, Northwest; thence northerly 
along the east side of Twelfth Street and 
Constitution Avenue, Northwest; thence 
northerly along the east side of Twelfth 
Street to the southeast corner of the inter- 
section of Twelfth Street and Pennsylvania 
Avenue, Northwest; thence westerly along 
the south side of Pennsylvania Avenue to 
the point of beginning being the southwest 
corner of the intersection of Fourteenth 
Street and Pennsylvania Avenue (formerly 
E Street), Northwest. 

(5) Federal triangle property.— The term 
"Federal Triangle property" means— 

(A) the property owned by the United 
States in the District of Columbia, known as 
the "Great Plaza" site, which consists of 
squares 256, 257, 258, parts of squares 259 
and 260, and adjacent closed rights-of-way 
as shov/n on plate IV of the King Plats of 
1803 located in the Office of the Surveyor 
of the District of Columbia; and 

(B) any property acquired by the Corpora- 
tion under section 3(b); 

except that for purposes of section 3 such 
term does not include any property referred 
to in subparagraph (B). 

The Senate bill was ordered to be 
read a third time, was read the third 
time, and passed, and a motion to re- 
consider was laid on the table. 



GENERAL LEAVE 

Mr. HOWARD. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that all Members 
may have 5 legislative days in which to 
revise and extend their remarks on the 
Senate bill just passed. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey? 

There was no objection. 



OPTIONAL ACREAGE DIVERSION 
ACT OF 1987 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the Commit- 
tee on Agriculture be discharged from 
further consideration of the bill (H.R. 
3093) to expand and improve the op- 
tional acreage diversion program for 
the 1988 crop of wheat, and ask for its 
immediate consideration in the House. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, re- 
serving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. 
GlickmanL 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I thank the gen- 
tleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill amends the ex- 
isting 50-92 provision in the 1985 farm 
bill and will permit a producer to re- 
ceive as much as 92 percent of his ex- 
pected deficiency payment for his 1988 
wheat crop, even if he does not har- 
vest the crop. The bill stipulates pay- 
ment rates. If the producer selects this 



^S-: 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23035 



option he will be guaranteed that the 
rate per bushel will be not less than 
the expected deficiency payment for 
the 1988 wheat crop. 

The bill makes a variety of require- 
ments for the Secretary to carry out 
this program, including he must pro- 
mulgate regulations to ensure that 
producers who select the 0-92 for their 
crops will not have their base or yield 
history affected by the crop. 

I would just say in addition this bill 
saves dollars. The program, according 
to the Department, for the crop will 
save anywhere between $115 million to 
$500 million because it is less advanta- 
geous for many producers to go this 
route. But this is an optional diversion 
program and it allows some people to 
participate in it. The Department does 
not oppose this bill. 

We had a 0-92 program for wheat in 
the 1987 crop year. This is 0-92 for 
1988 for wheat and feed grains. This is 
a money saver. 

Why are we doing this now? Two 
reasons. 

One is we thought maybe we could 
get it into a reconciliation package, 
but we are not going to have a recon- 
ciliation package until September, and 
the wheat producers need tc know 
very, very quickly if they will have 
this option available to them so that 
they will not have to unnecessarily 
make planting decisions that are ex- 
pensive knowing this program is avail- 
able. 

We thought if we sent this over to 
the Senate today there is a chance 
that they might buy it, and if not they 
might buy it early enough in Septem- 
ber so as to give those producers that 
particular option. 

We have also been advised that the 
Congressional Budget Office will agree 
that this is a money saver and will 
count toward our reconciliation goals. 

On balance, we are doing this now 
because we are trying to get an early 
start to make sure our wheat produc- 
ers in this country are well aware of 
this particular option in trying to get 
it enacted. And also to take advantage 
of the savings that we will accrue from 
this bill in reconciliation. 

The gentleman from Illinois [Mr. 
Madigan] amended this bill in commit- 
tee to include feed grains as well as 
wheat. So we think we have a bill that 
is roughly comparable to the kind of 
program we tried last year on an op- 
tional basis. 

It saves a lot of money ever a period 
of years, it gives producers an option 
that they do not already have, and it 
provides some help for reconciliation 
purposes. 

So for these reasons I think it is ad- 
visable that the bill be passed today. 
The bill was passed out of the Agricul- 
ture Committee on Wednesday with 
the help of our chairman, the gentle- 
man from Texas, Mr. de la Garza. 



Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, I thank the chair- 
man of the Subcommittee on Wheat 
and Feed Grains for his explanation. 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, I yield to the gen- 
tleman from Texas. 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
urge the House tc approve H.R. 3093, 
with the committee amendment. The 
bill must be acted on now to accommo- 
date the producers of the 1988 crop of 
winter wheat. These farmers, in some 
areas of the country, will begin plant- 
ing their 1988 crop in September. And, 
their planting decisions would be ef- 
fected by this legislation. 

The bill has been cleared on both 
sides and should be noncontroversial. 
It will extend the so-called 0-92 pro- 
gram for wheat and feed grain, begun 
for the 1987 crops, to the 1988 crops. 

The 0-92 program does not make 
any substantive changes in the 1985 
farm bill; it just expands the 50-92 
program to encompass larger set-sides. 

The 0-92 program and 50-92 pro- 
gram are designed to give producers of 
these commodities, which are now in 
surplus supply, a chance to scale down 
production. Producers will be able to 
participate in the 1988 farm programs 
by putting their wheat or feed grain 
land into conserving uses in 1988. 

Given current surpluses, it makes 
good sense to try to reduce supplies. 
By doing so, we will reduce Federal 
farm program costs. In fact, the USDA 
estimates that this bill will reduce 
farm program costs by up to $500 mil- 
lion over the next crop year. 

I encourage the House to adopt this 
measure. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, again I thank the 
chairman for his explanation of the 
bill. This is somewhat of an unusual 
procedure, but it is my understanding 
that time was of the essence, that 
planning is imminent, and we must 
proceed with this in the most expedi- 
tious manner. 

I would further ask the chairman, 
under my reservation of objection, to 
confirm that this bill contains provi- 
sions which would protect rural agro- 
business or service businesses against 
any adverse impacts by directing the 
Secretary of Agriculture specifically to 
implement this program in such a 
manner as to avoid such adverse im- 
pacts on agriculturally related busi- 
nesses. 

In other words, if the Secretary sees 
that too much cropland in a particular 
area or county would be taken out of 
production, and thus because small 
businesses which provide suDnlies and 
services to farmers ar.u ranchers would 
suffer, that he has the authority to 
limit to some extent the total acreages 
of wheat or feed grains which would 



be allowed to participate in the 0-92 
program. Is that correct? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MARLENEE. I yield to the gen- 
tleman from Kansas. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, the 
gentleman is correct. The gentleman is 
restating his amendment which was 
offered in the committee, which was 
accepted by the committee. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, I yield to the gen- 
tleman from Minnesota. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, I wanted 
to raise that question myself. I wonder 
if one of the gentlemen can explain 
that just a little bit more for those of 
us who are not on the committee, be- 
cause that is an important provision in 
my part of the country where we have 
large participation in the conservation 
program. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, I assure my col- 
league from Minnesota that we at- 
tempted in the committee, in the full 
committee, and did put an amendment 
in there. It was the committee's inten- 
tion that the Secretary of Agriculture 
would consider all programs that took 
land out of production, the conserva- 
tion reserve program, the set-asides, 
the 0-92, examine the impacts of those 
on agrobusiness, and if there were ad- 
verse impacts that he would consider 
limiting participation in one or more 
of the programs. 

□ 1110 

That was the intent of the subcom- 
mittee. 

Mr. Speaker, further reserving the 
right to object, I would yield to my 
colleague from Oklahoma [Mr. Eng- 
lish]. 

Mr. ENGLISH. I thank the gentle- 
man for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of 
H.R. 3093— a bill to expand and im- 
prove the optional acreage diversion 
program known as 0-92 which I initiat- 
ed earlier this year in response to the 
natural disasters suffered by many of 
the wheat producers in my part of the 
country last fall. 

I am one of the three original spon- 
sors of this bill and I want to briefly 
explain to my colleagues why this bill 
makes good sense not only for Ameri- 
can farmers but also for American tax- 
\ ayers. 

This bill will allow wheat and feed 
grain producers to idle all or any part 
of their permitted acreage and still 
qualify for 92 percent of their Govern- 
ment deficiency payments which are 
provided under the 1985 farm bill. It 
should be made clear mat this meas- 
ure will not create any new program 
benefits, but in reality will extend the 
authority these producers already 



23036 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



have under current law to idle up to 50 
percent of their permitted acreage 
while receiving income support pay- 
ments. 

The 0-92 voluntary acreage diversion 
is simply one more tool producers will 
have at their disposal for improving 
farm income without impacting on the 
Federal budget deficit, and in fact, will 
result in savings in our farm programs. 

The incentives we will give farmers 
in this bill to take land out of produc- 
tion in the next crop year will help 
boost market prices by reducing the 
surplus stocks that already overhang 
the marketplace. At the same time 
this provision will provide Federal 
budget savings through reduced loan 
forfeitures and storage costs that 
would otherwise occur if producers 
were to continue planting to the full- 
est extent possible under the Federal 
farm programs. 

The U.S. Department of Agriculture 
has estimated that anywhere from 
$100 million to more than $500 million 
in Federal cost savings could be 
achieved if this program were to be en- 
acted for the new crop year. It was cer- 
tainly the intention of this Member to 
support this 0-92 provision as part of 
the House Agriculture Committee's 
budget reconciliation efforts to find 
the necessary budget savings in farm 
programs specified under the fiscal 
year 1988 budget resolution. 

And I believe that the committee 
will continue to pursue this effort 
when we return from the August 
recess, but if we don't pass this meas- 
ure today it will very possibly be too 
late for the producers in my area of 
the country which are beginning now 
to plant their 1988 winter wheat crop 
to consider this as a viable alternative 
to the current farm programs. With- 
out this authority, these producers 
will not be able to voluntarily, and I 
emphasize voluntarily, choose to idle 
their land and help achieve these vi- 
tally important budget savings. 

One final issue I would like to ad- 
dress concerns the potential impact 
this provision might have on agri-in- 
dustries. I would point out to my col- 
leagues that this bill now includes an 
important provision that will require 
the Secretary of Agriculture to imple- 
ment the 0-92 program in such a 
manner as to minimize any adverse 
impact on agribusiness and other agri- 
culturally related economic interests 
within any given county, State, and/or 
region of the country. This bill also di- 
rects the Secretary to report back to 
the Congress on the estimated eco- 
nomic losses or gains which may 
accrue to these agricultural support 
industries as a result of the implemen- 
tation of this bill. 

Mr. Speaker, this bill requires the 
immediate attention of this body if we 
are to be successful in providing this 
flexible and budget-saving tool for our 



farmers in the 1988 crop year. I urge 
my colleagues to support H.R. 3093. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, I yield to the gen- 
tleman from Missouri [Mr. Volkmer]. 

Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in support of the legislation and wish 
to commend the chairman of the sub- 
committee, the gentleman from 
Kansas [Mr. Glickman], the gentle- 
man from Montana [Mr. Marlenee], 
the gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Rob- 
erts], and the gentleman from Okla- 
homa [Mr. English], and the chair- 
man of the full committee, the gentle- 
man from Texas [Mr. de la Garza], for 
giving our farmers another tool with 
which to face another year in agricul- 
ture. I think it is an important tool. 

Mr. Speaker, I wish to request the 
other body, the Senate to take prompt 
action on this bill so that our farmers 
who are preparing for their wheat 
plantings will be able to make use of 
this tool in making that decision. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, I would yield to my 
colleague from Minnesota. 

Mr. WEBER. Mr. Speaker, I also rise 
in support of the 0-92 program. I 
wonder if the gentleman from Mon- 
tana can explain to us a little bit about 
the restrictions that may exist under 
the program for the planting of non- 
program crops on 0-92 acres. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
legislation, which will give farmers an- 
other option in their production deci- 
sions and take a step toward a more ef- 
fective farm policy. 

The 0-92 provision is good for farm- 
ers. It allows those farmers who are 
carrying a high variable cost of pro- 
duction to not plant their corn or 
wheat base and receive 92 percent of 
their deficiency payment. For many 
farmers, it will give them the chance 
to get off the treadmill, reduce some 
of their debt, and take some of their 
marginal land out of production. 

This bill includes provisions to 
ensure that this measure does not 
hurt agribusinesses or producers of 
nonprogram crops. The Secretary may 
not allow farmers to plant alternative 
crops if that increased planting would 
cause a surplus. In addition, the Secre- 
tary has the power to limit participa- 
tion in 0-92 in areas where high enroll- 
ment in this program and the Conser- 
vation Reserve Program threaten local 
agribusinesses. 

This legislation is also good for the 
Government. The 0-92 provision will 
result in Government savings of any- 
where from $300 million to $400 mil- 
lion in the wheat and corn programs. 
Ironically, we could save even more 
money if we had designed this pro- 
gram to be 0-100. If we encourage 
more farmers to enter the program, by 
providing them a full deficiency pay- 
ment, the cost of the added deficiency 
payment would be swamped by the 
extra savings from reduced crop loans. 



In the future, I would like to see fur- 
ther consideration by the Congress of 
a 0-100 provision. Besides the addi- 
tional savings to the Government, it 
would make a farmer's planting deci- 
sion less affected by the Government 
program. 

This bill is a step in the right direc- 
tion. We have given farmers an added 
choice, provided balance that will pro- 
tect other sectors of the farm econo- 
my, and produced a measure that will 
cut Government costs. I urge my col- 
leagues to approve this legislation. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I 
would be happy to yield to my col- 
league, the chairman of the subcom- 
mittee, the gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Glickman]. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. This is the exact 
same as in the current 50-92 program. 

Mr. WEBER. So there is no change. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. None, none. 

Mr. WEBER. I thank the gentleman 
for yielding and I commend the com- 
mittee for their action. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
my right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
yield to the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Schuette]. 

Mr. SCHUETTE. I thank the gentle- 
man for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I commend the gentle- 
man from Kansas [Mr. Glickman] and 
the gentleman from Montana [Mr. 
Marlenee] for their work in this 
effort. 

Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for 
this opportunity to speak in support of 
the measure before us, H.R. 3093, the 
Optional Acreage Diversion Act of 
1987. This legislation will preserve 
farm income while addressing the 
problem of surplus grain stocks. Fur- 
thermore, the Optional Acreage Diver- 
sion Act of 1987 provides an additional 
alternative to those faced with the 
most difficult task of finding more 
than $2.1 billion in reductions of the 
Government's agriculture budget for 
fiscal year 1988. 

This is one of very few options of- 
fered that would yield a portion of the 
savings that may be required in budget 
reconciliation, while not reducing the 
income of our already financially 
strapped farmers. I think it is very im- 
portant that we remember as we con- 
sider this bill that we are going to be 
asked to make very difficult decisions, 
very soon, regarding the financial as- 
sistance farmers receive from the Fed- 
eral Government. We would be wise to 
have as many options available to us 
as possible, when we begin the budget 
reconciliation process. 

The 0/92 option for wheat and feed 
grains will not only give us the oppor- 
tunity to reduce expenditures by up to 
$200 million in fiscal year 1988, but it 
also contains potential savings of over 
$900 million through the year 1990. 
This means 0/92 could provide over 16 
percent of the budgetary savings nee- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23037 



essary at this time to bring the Feder- 
al budget under control. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, fur- 
ther reserving the right to object, we 
considered an amendment in the full 
committee regarding the basis upon 
which the Department of Agriculture 
would test and would adjust protein 
levels in wheat. It seems that they 
have changed the method, that it is 
costing our farmers a considerable 
amount of money. There does not 
seem to be a good basis for changing 
this. Instead of an "as is" basis which 
is tested on a very scientific and accu- 
rate measure and basis, they are 
basing it on moisture content. We 
withdrew that amendment. 

Mr. Speaker, I had a discussion with 
the chairman of the subcommittee and 
we have introduced a bill and I would 
yield to the chairman for that pur- 
pose. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, if 
the gentleman will yield, the gentle- 
man is totally on target in terms of his 
concern about the arbitrariness in the 
reduction in the price that the produc- 
er receives because of the determina- 
tion of protein content. 

I have told the gentleman and I will 
cooperate with him in trying to get 
the matter resolved administratively. 
If we cannot, I have committed to the 
gentleman that we would move legisla- 
tion as soon as we come back in Sep- 
tember to deal with this matter legis- 
latively. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, Mr. Speaker, I 
want to commend the chairman of the 
subcommittee and the chairman of the 
full committee and the gentleman 
from Kansas [Mr. Roberts], who has 
done an excellent job and is one of the 
cosponsors of the bill. 

Mr. ROBERT F. SMITH. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in support of H.R. 3093. This legislation is a 
first step toward reducing the costs of the 
1988 Agriculture budget, as well as giving 
wheat growers a valuable alternative to crop 
production. As a member of the Republican 
Task Force on Budget Reconciliation, I am 
very concerned about the proposed reduction 
in the 1988 Agriculture budget of $1.2 billion. 
The effects of these cuts could be disastrous 
if not implemented in a logical manner aimed 
at protecting the intent of the 1985 farm bill. 
Changing the current 50-92 program to 0-92 
will save $10 to $20 million in 1988 and a 
total of $40 to $50 million by 1990. 

I was seriously concerned about the haying 
and grazing provisions contained in this legis- 
lation. My concern was that Congress has 
created huge surpluses in program crops 
through a subsidy program and we do not 
want that to spill over to nonsubsidized crops. 
The 1985 farm bill is subsidizing people to 
take their land out of production. I believe it is 
unfair to allow them to compete with those 
who grow hay or grass for a living. Thus plac- 
ing them in competition with those who are 
paid by the Government not to produce under 
the new 0-92 provision. I believe it is philo- 
sophically wrong to permit these farmers and 



ranchers to take what amounts to two bites 
from the same Government apple. 

My amendment, offered during committee 
markup and passed by unanimous consent, 
will help correct this inequity. It will prohibit 
haying and grazing on lands enrolled in the 0- 
92 program. The Secretary of Agriculture will 
have the authority to allow haying and grazing 
only in cases of disasters and only if it will not 
impact related businesses including machin- 
ery, seed, fertilizer, and the cattle industry. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I 
withdraw my reservation of objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Kildee). Is there objection to the re- 
quest of the gentleman from Kansas? 

There was no objection. 

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: 
H.R. 3093 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That this 
Act may be cited as the "Optional Acreage 
Diversion Act of 1987". 

Sec 2. Effective only for the 1988 crop of 
wheat, section 107D(c)(l)(C) of the Agricul- 
tural Act of 1949 is amended by— 

(1) in clause (i)— 

(A) inserting ", or all such permitted acre- 
age," after "permitted wheat acreage of the 
farm for the crop"; 

(B) in subclause (I) thereof, inserting "(or 
all)" after "such portion", and 

(C) adding at the end thereof the follow- 
ing: "Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this section, any producer who elects to 
devote all or a portion in excess of 50 per 
centum of the 1988 permitted wheat acreage 
of the farm to conservation uses (or other 
uses as provided in subparagaph (K)) under 
this subparagraph shall receive deficiency 
payments on the acreage that is considered 
to be planted to wheat and eligible for pay- 
ments under this subparagraph for such 
crop at a per-bushel rate established by the 
Secretary, except that such rate may not be 
established at less than the projected defi- 
ciency payment rate for the crop, as deter- 
mined by the Secretary. Such payment rate 
for the 1988 crop shall be announced by the 
Secretary prior to the period during which 
wheat producers may agree to participate in 
the program for such crop."; 

(2) striking out "To be" in clause (ii) and 
inserting in lieu thereof "Effective for the 
1986, 1989, and 1990 crops, to be"; 

(3) in clause (iii), striking out "If" in the 
first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof 

'Effective for the 1986, 1989, and 1990 
crops, if"; and 

(4) in clause (iv)— 

(A) inserting "(or all)" after "such por- 
tion"; and 

(B) inserting "under this subparagraph" 
after "subparagraph (K))". 

Sec. 3. Not later than thirty days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Agriculture shall issue regulations imple- 
menting the amendments made to section 
107D(c)(l)(C) of the Agricultural Act of 
1949 by section 2. 

(A) Such regulations shall include provi- 
sions that ensure that the wheat crop acre- 
age base and farm program payment yield 
for any farm will not be reduced if the pro- 
ducers on the farm set aside from produc- 
tion all, or a portion, of the producer's 1988 
permitted acreage under the acreage diver- 
sion program under section 107D(c)(l)(C) as 
so amended. 

(B) Such regulations shall ensure, to the 
maximum extent practicable, that the pro- 



gram authorized by this Act will not ad- 
versely affect the relationships between 
landlords and tenants, regarding any crop 
acreage base entered into the program au- 
thorized by this Act, in existence at the date 
of enactment of this Act. 

AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE 
OFFERED BY MR. GLICKMAN 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I 
offer an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Amendment in the nature of a substitute 
offered by Mr. Glickman: Strike out all 
after the enacting clause and insert in lieu 
thereof the following: 

That this Act may be cited as the "Oper- 
ational Acreage Diverson Act of 1987". 

Sec 2. Effective only for the 1988 crop of 
wheat, section 107D(c)(l) of the Agricultur- 
al Act of 1949 is amended by— 

(1) in subparagraph (O— 

(A) in clause (i)— 

(i) inserting ", or all such permitted acre- 
age," after "permitted wheat acreage of the 
farm for the crop"; 

(ii) in subclause (I) thereof, inserting "(or 
all)" after "such portion"; and 

(iii) adding at the end thereof the follow- 
ing: "Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this section, any producer who elects to 
devote all or a portion in excess of 50 per 
centum of the 1988 permitted wheat acreage 
of the farm to conservation uses (or other 
uses as provided in subparagraph (K)) 
under this subparagraph shall receive defi- 
ciency payments on the acreage that is con- 
sidered to be planted to wheat and eligible 
for payments under this subparagraph for 
such crop at a per-bushel rate established 
by the Secretary, exceot that such rate may 
not be established at less than the projected 
deficiency payment rate for the crop, as de- 
termined by the Secretary. Such projected 
payment rate for the 1988 crop shall be an- 
nounced by the Secretary prior to the 
period during which wheat producers may 
agree to participate in the program for such 
crop."; 

(B) striking out "To be" in clause (ii) and 
inserting in lieu thereof "Effective for the 
1986, 1989, and 1990 crops, to be"; 

(C) in clause (iii), striking out "If" in the 
first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof 
"Effective for the 1986, 1989, and i990 
crops, if"; and 

(D) in clauses (iv)— 

(i) inserting "(or all)" after "such por- 
tion"; and 

(ii) inserting "under this subparagraph" 
after "subparagraph (K)) "; and 

(2) in subparagraph (K)— 

(A) in clause (ii)(I), striking out "sub- 
clause (II)" and inserting in lieu thereof 
"subclauses (II) and (III)"; and 

(B) adding at the end thereof the follow- 
ing: 

"(III) Haying and grazing shall not be per- 
mitted for the 1988 crop on a farm under 
subclause (I) on more than 50 per centum of 
the permitted wheat acreage of the farm.". 

Sec. 3. Effective only for the 1988 crop of 
feed grains, section 105C(c)(l) of the Agri- 
cultural Act of 1949 is amended by— 

(1) in subparagraph (B)— 

(A) in clause (1)— 

(i) inserting ", or all of such permitted 
acreage," after "permitted feed grain acre- 
age of the farm for the crop"; 

(ii) in subclause (I) thereof, inserting "(or 
all)" after "such portion"; and 




23038 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



(iii) adding at the end thereof the follow- 
ing: "Notwithstanding any other provision 
of this section, any producer who elects to 
devote all or a portion in excess of 50 per 
centum of the 1988 permitted feed grain 
acreage of the farm to conservation uses (or 
other uses as provided in subparagraph (I)) 
under this subparagraph shall receive defi- 
ciency payments on the acreage that is con- 
sidered to be planted to feed grains and eli- 
gible for payments under this subparagraph 
for such crop at a per-bushel rate estab- 
lished by the Secretary, except that such 
rate may not be established at less than the 
projected deficiency payment rate for the 
crop, as determined by the Secretary. Such 
projected payment rate for the 1988 crop 
shall be announced by the Secretary prior 
to the period during which feed grain pro- 
ducers may agree to participate in the pro- 
gram for such crop."; 

(B) striking out "To be" in clause (ii) and 
inserting in lieu thereof "Effective for the 
1986, 1989, and 1990 crops, to be"; 

(C) in clause (iii), striking out "If" in the 
first sentence and inserting in lieu thereof 
"Effective for the 1986, 1989, and 1990 
crops, if"; and 

(D) in clause (iv)— 

(A) inserting "(or all)" after "such por- 
tion"; and 

(B) inserting "under this subparagraph" 
after "subparagraph (I))"; and 

(2) in subparagraph (I)— 

(A) in clause (H)(1), striking out "sub- 
clause (II)" and inserting in lieu thereof 
"subclauses (II) and (III)"; and 

(B) adding at the end thereof the follow- 
ing: 

"(III) Haying and grazing shall not be per- 
mitted for the 1988 crop on a farm under 
subclause (I) on more than 50 per centum of 
the permitted feed grain acreage for the 
farm.". 

Sec. 4. Not later than thirty days after the 
date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary 
of Agriculture shall issue regulations imple- 
menting the amendments made to sections 
107D(c)(l) and 105C(c)(l) of the Agricultur- 
al act of 1949 by sections 2 and 3, respective- 
ly. 

(A) such regulations shall include provi- 
sions that ensure that the wheat or feed 
grain crop acreage base and farm program 
payment yield for any farm will not be re- 
duced if the producers on the farm set aside 
from production all, or a portion, of the pro- 
ducer's 1988 permitted acreage under the 
acreage diversion program under section 
107D(c)(l)(C) or 105C(c)(l)(B), respectively, 
as amended under this Act. 

(B) Such regulations shall ensure, to the 
maximum extent practicable, that the pro- 
grams authorized under this Act will not ad- 
versely affect the relationships between 
landlords and tenants, regarding any crop 
acreage base entered into such programs, in 
existence at the date of enactment of this 
Act. 

Sec 5. The Secretary of Agriculture shall 
implement the programs authorized under 
this Act in such a manner as to minimize 
any adverse effect on agribusiness and other 
agriculturally related economic interests 
within any county, State, or region by re- 
stricting the total amount of wheat or feed 
grain acreage that may be taken out of pro- 
duction under the programs, taking into 
consideration the total amount of wheat or 
feed grain acreage that has or will be re- 
moved from production under other price 
support, production adjustment, or conser- 
vation program activities. 



Mr. GLICKMAN (during the read- 
ing). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute be considered as 
read and printed in the Record. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Kansas? 

There was no objection. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, this 
amendment reflects the action of the 
committee. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman yield? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I yield to the gen- 
tleman from Montana. 

Mr. MARLENEE. I thank the gen- 
tleman for yielding. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman explain the amend- 
ment? 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, the 
amendment reflects the action of the 
Committee on Agriculture that we 
took, including the amendment of the 
gentleman on the limitation of the use 
of 0-92 and everything else. It reflects 
all the actions we took to amend the 
bill in committee. 

Mr. MARLENEE. If the gentleman 
would yield further, I would urge pas- 
sage of the 0-92 legislation and the 
amendment we just heard. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
question is on the amendment in the 
nature of a substitute offered by the 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glick- 
man]. 

The amendment in the nature of a 
substitute was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
gentleman from Kansas [Mr. Glick- 
man] is recognized for 1 hour. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. Mr. Speaker, I 
yield such time as he may consume to 
the very distinguished member of the 
committee, the gentleman from Vir- 
ginia [Mr. Olin]. 

Mr. OLIN. I thank the gentleman 
for yielding and for giving me a 
chance to make some comments on his 
amendment and his bill. 

Mr. Speaker, I regret to say that I 
am rising in opposition to the bill. I 
really feel that it is not appropriate to 
bring this kind of a change in farm 
policy to the floor in the first place 
under suspension, particularly with 
the unanimous-consent request at this 
late date. 

I think the bill needs to be discussed 
somewhat. I am going to discuss it not 
for a great length of time, but for 
enough. 

This bill would establish for 1 year 
the policy of paying farmers not to 
plant corn, wheat, feed grains, those 
particular commodities. It represents 
an extension and change in the basic 
farm policy of this country. The 1985 
farm bill, as we all know, laid out a 
program of trying to get agriculture 
focused on the market. We specified in 
that program that we would put a ceil- 
ing on the increase of target prices, we 
would look forward in the 4th and 5th 



years of that program to bring target 
prices down. We decided to lower loan 
rates, to encourage the farmers to 
think more of the economics of their 
operations and try to get themselves 
in a position where they could sell 
profitably to the market without ex- 
tensive Government subsidies. This 
amendment and the bill of the gentle- 
man would pay the farmers 92 percent 
of the regular deficiency payment for 
crops not planted, wheat, corn, and 
feed grains. 

The authorization in this bill is only 
for 1 year, but I do not really believe 
that it would end there. I think this 
would stand a very good chance of be- 
coming a permanent portion of our 
farm policy. 

In that respect, I just have a strong 
philosophical disagreement with it. 

I felt that one of the big dangers we 
have had in our farm policy is exces- 
sive price supports, excessive incen- 
tives to produce. Now we are talking 
about something that might become 
permanent where we are not going to 
pay farmers a rather healthy level to 
produce, but we are going to start 
paying them for not producing. I 
think we are moving backward in this 
respect, I think we are going away 
from the primary purpose of the 1985 
farm bill. 

I think it is in the wrong direction. I 
just do not believe you are ever going 
to get the budget balanced. This bill is 
for the purpose of trying to lower the 
Government cost. But everybody 
knows that over the last 10 years we 
have succeeded in raising the Govern- 
ment cost of these programs from 
around $5 billion to $25 billion. And as 
we added more and more Government 
programs that has been the result. 

In addition, this particular bill is 
very unfair to people in the livestock 
business. It would permit more land to 
be made available for haying and graz- 
ing, not 100 percent of the land in- 
volved, but half of the land involved. 
It would put farmers who previously 
had been raising wheat and corn, and 
feed grains in the position of going 
into the livestock business with a Gov- 
ernment subsidy. I think that is a 
very, very bad policy. It is also quite 
contrary to the intent of the farm bill 
with regard to allowing a reasonably 
long period of time for agriculture to 
readjust itself to the market. This 
would accelerate the reduction of acre- 
age, it would be very unfair to agri- 
businesses. I think, Mr. Speaker, it is 
unwise to bring the bill up. I am op- 
posed to the bill. I would hope that 
Members of the House will react 
against the bill and not make this 
change. 

I thank the gentleman for allowing 
me the time to speak. 

Mr. GLICKMAN. I appreciate the 
remarks of the gentleman. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23039 



Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a 
couple of quick remarks before I yield 
back the balance of my time. 

This bill does save over a period of 
years several hundred million dollars, 
it removes the incentive to overpro- 
duce at least with respect to those 
people who decide to participate. 

Finally, there is no change in the 
current law in terms of the livestock 
provision. So it should have no other 
negative impact beyond what is cur- 
rently existing law. 

I have no further requests for time 
and I yield back the balance of my 
time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. With- 
out objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the bill. 

There was no objection. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
and read a third time, was read the 
third time, and passed. 

The title of the bill was amended so 
as to read: "A bill to expand and im- 
prove the optional acreage diversion 
program for the 1988 crops of wheat 
and feed grains." 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 



URGING THE PRESIDENT TO 
MAKE DEVELOPMENT OF AG- 
RICULTURAL MARKETS IN DE- 
VELOPING COUNTRIES A HIGH 
PRIORITY 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture and the Com- 
mittee on Foreign Affairs be dis- 
charged from further consideration of 
the concurrent resolution (H. Con. 
Res. 151) urging the President to make 
the development of agricultural mar- 
kets in developing countries a high pri- 
ority of the foreign economic policy of 
the Nation, and ask for its immediate 
consideration. 

The Clerk read the title of the con- 
current resolution. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, re- 
serving the right to object, I do so in 
order to yield to my colleague from 
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter]. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in strong support of this legislation, I 
commend Chairman de la Garza and 
members of the Committee on Agricul- 
ture for bringing it to us today. This 
legislation is fully consistent with one 
of the primary recommendations of 
the National Commission on Agricul- 
tural Trade and Export Policy of 
which I was an active member as was 
Chairman de la Garza and several 
other Members of the House and of 
the other body. I think it is extremely 
important that the sentiment con- 
tained in this resolution be expressed 
by the Congress, that it become an im- 
portant part of our foreign economic 



policy for the country to promote agri- 
cultural markets in developing coun- 
tries. Likewise I believe that the com- 
mittee's suggestion regarding a specif- 
ic country by country strategy within 
that national framework and strategy 
is also very important. 

So as a member of the Trade Sub- 
committee of the Committee on For- 
eign Affairs where we also shared ju- 
risdiction in the area of agricultural 
exports, I want to speak out strongly 
in support of the resolution. 

I thank the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Further reserving 
the right to object, if the chairman of 
the subcommittee would answer a 
question, I note the last paragraph 
that says: 

In doing so to make more effective use of 
food aid and agricultural export develop- 
ment tools provided in the Food Security 
Act of 1985 and other laws by developing on 
a country by country basis a broad compre- 
hensive and integrated program of food aid 
and economic development, assistance to 
build future foreign commercial markets for 
United States agricultural products. 

This goes along with the intent and 
direction of the 1985 farm bill as the 
chairman so well knows. Does it not? 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman yield? 

Mr. MARLENEE. Under my reserva- 
tion, I yield to the chairman. 

Mr. de la GARZA. I thank the gen- 
tleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is cor- 
rect. 

Mr. MARLENEE. I think this is an 
excellent piece of legislation. This is 
what we need to do. We need to recog- 
nize that we are in an international 
world of competition. This kind of res- 
olution urging the administration to 
take the kind of actions that we in- 
tended in 1985 in the farm bill is es- 
sential and I would urge its passage. 

Mr. EMERSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of this legislation, and I urge my col- 
leagues to support it as well. 

It is not often we can adopt farm legislation 
that both saves money and protects producer 
income. This bill does that. It will provide a 
mechanism to reduce commodity surpluses, 
thereby reducing storage costs, while main- 
taining producer income. 

I do share the concern of my colleague 
from Montana, that we also take into consid- 
eration the interest of agribusiness, and make 
certain that we balance their needs in this 
program. On whole, however, I believe this is 
a good bill, and I urge my colleagues to sup- 
port it. 

Mr. MARLENEE. Mr. Speaker, I 
withdraw my reservation of objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

The Clerk read the concurrent reso- 
lution, as follows: 

H. Con. Res. 151 

Whereas the producers of food and fiber 
in the United States have the capacity to 



produce 40 percent more than is consumed 
in the domestic market; 

Whereas economic prosperity of the 
United States farmer and rural America are 
unalterably linked to strong agricultural ex- 
ports and export growth: 

Whereas agricultural exports have de- 
clined for the past 6 years and the farm and 
rural economic sector of the United States 
continues of suffer; 

Whereas the recommendations of the Na- 
tional Commission on Agricultural Trade 
and Export Policy, and the preponderance 
of the research of the Economic Research 
Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
private foundations, land grant colleges, and 
other institutions, support the use of a co- 
ordinated program of food aid and economic 
development assistance to build future for- 
eign commercial markets for United States 
agricultural products; and 

Whereas the food aid and agricultural 
export development tools provided in the 
Food Security Act of 1985 have not been 
used to the fullest extent possible: Now, 
therefore, be it 

Resolved by the House of Representatives 
(the Senate concurring), That Congress 
urges the President — 

(1) to make development of agricultural 
markets in developing countries a high pri- 
ority of the foreign economic policy of the 
Nation; and 

(2) in doing so, to make more effective use 
of the food aid and agricultural export de- 
velopment tools provided in the Food Secu- 
rity Act of 1985 and other laws, by develop- 
ing, on a country by country basis, a broad, 
comprehensive, and integrated program of 
food aid and economic development assist- 
ance to build future foreign commercial 
markets for United States agricultural prod- 
ucts. 

The concurrent resolution was 
agreed to. 

AMENDMENT TO THE PREAMBLE OFFERED BY MR. 
DE LA GARZA 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
offer an amendment to the preamble. 

The Clerk read as follows: 

Amendment to the preamble offered by 
Mr. de la Garza: Strike out the preamble 
and insert the following in lieu thereof: 

Whereas the producers of food and fiber 
in the United States have the capacity to 
produce 40 percent more than is consumed 
in the domestic market; 

Whereas economic prosperity of the 
United States farmer and rural America are 
unalterably linked to strong agricultural ex- 
ports and export growth; 

Whereas agricultural exports have de- 
clined for the past 6 years and the farm and 
rural economic sector of the United States 
continues to suffer; 

Whereas the potential for an increase in 
demand for U.S. agricultural exports to de- 
veloping countries can be enhanced through 
extension of economic assistance and other 
measures to promote economic growth in 
those countries; 

Whereas the recommendations of the Na- 
tional Commission on Agricultural Trade 
and Export Policy, and the preponderance 
of the research of the Economic Research 
Service of the Department of Agriculture, 
private foundations, land grant colleges, and 
other institutions, support the use of a co- 
ordinated program of food aid and economic 
development assistance to build future for- 
eign commercial markets for United States 
agricultural products; and 









23040 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Whereas the food aid and agricultural 
export development tools provided in the 
Pood Security Act of 1985 have not been 
used to the fullest extent possible: Now, 
therefore, be it 

Mr. de la GARZA [during the read- 
ing]. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the amendment to the 
preamble be considered as read and 
printed in the Record. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 

The amendment to the preamble 
was agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 



□ 1125 
GENERAL LEAVE 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that all Mem- 
bers may have 5 legislative days in 
which to revise and extend their re- 
marks on H.R. 3093, the bill previously 
passed, and on House Concurrent Res- 
olution 151, the concurrent resolution 
just adopted. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Kildee). Is there objection to the re- 
quest of the gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 



EXTENDING THE REPORTING 

DATE FOR THE ETHANOL 

COST EFFECTIVENESS STUDY 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture be discharged 
from further consideration of the 
Senate bill (S. 1597) to amend the 
Farm Disaster Assistance Act of 1987 
to extend the reporting date for the 
ethanol cost effectiveness study. 

The Clerk read the title of the 
Senate bill. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, reserv- 
ing the right to object, I would like to 
tell my colleagues that we have the 
support of our minority leader, the 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Michel] 
and of the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Madigan], who is the ranking 
member of the Committee on Agricul- 
ture. 

Under my reservation, I would 
simply like to thank the committee 
chairman for expediting this process 
to extend the life of the ethanol panel 
from 90 to 180 days so we can have 
some very valuable work from that 
panel and so we can make the appoint- 
ments which have been held up. 

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw my reserva- 
tion of objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 



The Clerk read the Senate bill, as 
follows: 

S. 1597 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. ETHANOL COST-EFFECTIVENESS 
STUDY. 

(a) In General.— Section 13(d) of the 
Farm Disaster Assistance Act of 1987 
(Public Lav; 100-45; 101 Stat. 324) is amend- 
ed by striking out "90 days" and inserting in 
lieu thereof "180 days". 

(b) Effective Date.— The amendment 
made by subsection (a) shall become effec- 
tive on May 27, 1987. 

The Senate bill was ordered to be 
read a third time, was read the third 
time, and passed, and a motion to re- 
consider was laid on the table. 



PROVIDING FOR CONSIDER- 
ATION OF HOUSE JOINT RESO- 
LUTION 132, NATIONAL DAY OF 
REMEMBRANCE OF THE ARME- 
NIAN GENOCIDE OF 1915-1923 

Mr. BONIOR of Michigan. Mr. 
Speaker, by direction of the Commit- 
tee on Rules, I call up House Resolu- 
tion 238 and ask for its immediate con- 
sideration. 

The Clerk read the resolution, as fol- 
lows: 

H. Res. 238 

Resolved, That at any time after the adop- 
tion of this resolution the Speaker may, 
pursuant to clause Kb) of rule XXIII, de- 
clare the House resolved into the Commit- 
tee of the Whole House on the State of the 
Union for the consideration of the joint re- 
soluton (H.J. Res. 132) designating April 24, 
1987, as "National Day of Remembrance of 
the Armenian Genocide of 1915-1923" and 
the first reading of the joint resolution shall 
be dispensed with. After general debate, 
which shall be confined to the joint resolu- 
tion and which shall not exceed one hour, to 
be equally divided and controlled by the 
chairman and ranking minority member of 
the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service, the joint resolution shall be consid- 
ered for amendment under the five-minute 
rule. In lieu of the amendment now printed 
in the joint resolution, it shall be in order to 
consider, any rule of the House to the con- 
trary notwithstanding, the text following 
the resolving clause and the preamble print- 
ed in the report of the Committee on Rules 
accompaning this resolution as original text 
for the purpose of amendment. Amend- 
ments in the House and in the Committee 
of the Whole to the text following the re- 
solving clause, including amendments in the 
nature of a substitute, must be germane to 
that text and amendments to the preamble 
must be germane to the preamble. Consider- 
ation of all amendments to the text follow- 
ing the resolving clause and to the preamble 
made in order by this resolution shall not 
exceed two hours. At the conclusion of the 
consideration of the joint resolution for 
amendment, the Committee shall rise and 
report the joint resolution to the House 
with such amendments as may have been 
adopted, and any Member may demand a 
separate vote in the House on any amend- 
ment adopted in the Committee of the 
Whole to the joint resolution or to the 
amendment in the nature of a substitute 
made in order as original text by this resolu- 



tion. The previous question shall be consid- 
ered as ordered on the joint resolution and 
amendments thereto to final passage with- 
out intervening motion except one motion 
to recommit. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Glickman). The gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is recognized 
for 1 hour. 

Mr. BONIOR of Michigan. Mr. 
Speaker, I yield the customary 30 min- 
utes to the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Taylor], pending which I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 238 
provides for the consideration of 
House Joint Resolution 132 designat- 
ing April 24, 1988, as "National Day of 
Remembrance of the Armenian Geno- 
cide of 1915-1923." 

The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate to be equally divided and con- 
trolled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service. 

The rule makes in order the text of 
House Joint Resolution 132 plus a pre- 
amble, printed in the report of the 
Committee on Rules, any rule of the 
House to the contrary notwithstand- 
ing, as original text for the purposes 
of amendment. 

The rule further provides that all 
amendments, including amendments 
in the nature of a substitute, to the 
text following the resolving clause 
must be germane to that clause and 
that amendments to the preamble 
must be germane to the preamble. 

Mr. Speaker, the rule limits the con- 
sideration of all amendments to the 
text following the resolving clause or 
to the preamble to 2 hours. The rule 
also provides for one motion to recom- 
mit. 

Mr. Speaker, if I could, I would like 
to take a minute to talk a bit about 
this legislation and the rule we are 
currently considering. There are Mem- 
bers who feel that House Joint Resolu- 
tion 132, despite many sincere efforts 
to soften it, is still too hard on the cur- 
rent Turkish Government. In a fur- 
ther effort to make this legislation less 
offensive to the Republic of Turkey, 
the sponsors added the preamble 
which seeks to broaden the resolution 
to show the Turkish Government that 
we do not intend to single them out or 
to isolate them in this resolution. 

By referencing acts of genocide and 
other instances of man's inhumanity 
to man, such as the Jewish Holocaust, 
Cambodian genocide and the destruc- 
tion of native populations throughout 
the Americas, the sponsors sought to 
show that they did not intend to point 
the finger or isolate any government 
or people in the resolution. 

The sponsors wanted to attach the 
preamble to the resolving clause so it 
would come to the floor as one single 
legislative vehicle— not just a resolu- 
tion and an amendment. They go to- 
gether and the sponsors wanted to 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23041 



present them together. For this 
reason, the rule provides for the con- 
sideration of the preamble and the re- 
solving clause as one amendment in 
the nature of a substitute as original 
text for the purposes of amendment. 

The rule specifies that this new ve- 
hicle be considered under the same 
procedures which are in order for any 
other joint resolution. That is— the 
text of the resolving clause be consid- 
ered for amendment first and that 
amendments be germane to that 
clause. When all amendments to the 
resolving clause are completed, it is in 
order to consider germane amend- 
ments to the preamble. 

Mr. Speaker, the rule limits debate 
on amendments to the resolving clause 
and the preamble to 2 hours in an 
effort to honor the leadership request 
to preserve the limited floor time we 
have before we recess. In addition, Mr. 
Speaker, resolutions similar to this 
one have been fully debated on the 
House floor in the past. The issues 
have not changed and should be famil- 
iar to Members. 

This is an open rule in the sense 
that Members have the opportunity to 
amend the resolving clause and the 
preamble with germane amendments, 
to the extent that time allows. Mr. 
Speaker, in light of the fact that no 
Member other than Mr. Lehman indi- 
cated to the Rules Committee they 
were interested in offering amend- 
ments, and because Chairman Ford in- 
dicated that he was not aware of any 
Members who wanted to offer amend- 
ments, the Rules Committee does not 
believe this time limit is restrictive. 

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 238 
is a very fair rule under which to con- 
sider House Joint Resolution 132 and I 
urge its adoption. 

Mr. Speaker, the murder of 1.5 mil- 
lion Armenians beginning in 1915 has 
been called the first genocide of the 
20th century. Mr. Speaker, the world 
community cannot let genocide and in- 
humanity go unacknowledged and un- 
mourned, for by doing so, we make it 
more likely to reoccur. It was, after all, 
Adolf Hitler who not long after the 
Armenian genocide, masterminded the 
genocide of over 6 million Jews and is 
quoted as having said: "Who still talks 
nowadays about the extermination of 
the Armenians?'' 

House Joint Resolution 132, asks the 
President to designate April 24, 1988, 
as a day when all Americans, especial- 
ly those of Armenian ancestry, can re- 
member the Armenian experience, can 
remember the victims, and can pray in 
their hearts that such horrors can be 
stopped in the future. 

Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from 
the Secretary of State yesterday im- 
plying that considering this joint reso- 
lution on the floor of the House could 
jeopardize Turkey's ratification of the 
defense economic cooperation agree- 
ment [DEC A]. 



Every time a joint resolution like 
House Joint Resolution 132 is sched- 
uled for consideration the Turkish 
Government comes up with some 
reason why it is a bad time. 

In April 1984, when the resolution 
was introduced, the administration 
claimed it would compromise negotia- 
tions with Turkey over the air bases. 

In September 1984, the administra- 
tion again argued against Senate pas- 
sage of the House-passed resolution. 

In May 1985 the resolution was 
scheduled for consideration in the 
Rules Committee, the administration 
had it postponed saying it would inter- 
fere with strategic negotiations with 
Turkey. 

In January 1985, when Congressman 
Coelho wanted to introduce the reso- 
lution, he was told that Turkish Prime 
Minister Ozal was going to visit Wash- 
ington then and if the resolution were 
introduced, he would cancel the trip. 
It was postponed. 

In April 1987, the resolution was 
scheduled in committee. The Secre- 
tary of State personally called Chair- 
man Ford to say that committee con- 
sideration of the resolution would 
make Turkey's President Evren cancel 
his scheduled trip to Washington. 
Chairman Ford postponed consider- 
ation. President Evren's Washington 
trip was postponed for other reasons, 
and Chairman Ford, I believe to this 
day cannot find out when he plans to 
reschedule his trip. 

Today, Mr. Speaker, very predict- 
ably, the administration, or the Turk- 
ish Government, is coming up with yet 
another excuse why we should not 
consider this commemorative resolu- 
tion. 

This resolution sets aside a day of 
commemoration within the United 
States, not in Turkey or any other 
country in the world. Over the last 
several years, great care has been 
taken to make sure the resolution does 
not blame the current Government in 
Turkey for the deeds of long past re- 
gimes. 

Mr. Speaker, we no more hold the 
current Turkish Government responsi- 
ble for the actions of the Ottoman 
Empire than we hold West Germany 
responsible for the actions of the 
Third Reich. But we do not hesitate 
for a moment to acknowledge the 
Jewish Holocaust and mourn for the 
victims of that terrible human trage- 
dy. And, Mr. Speaker, we should not 
hesitate here to acknowledge the Ar- 
menian genocide and mourn for the 
victims of that terrible human trage- 
dy! 

And to my colleagues in the Con- 
gress, and in the administration, who 
now cast doubt on whether there actu- 
ally was an Armenian genocide at all, I 
say they are dead wrong. 

This very House on two occasions 
has acknowledged the Armenian 
Genocide. On April 8, 1975, a resolu- 



tion very similar to House Joint Reso- 
lution 132, introduced by Congressman 
Helstoski and Congressman Thomas P. 
O'Neill, was passed under suspension 
of the rules by a vote of 332 to 55. 
That resolution clearly acknowledged 
the Armenian genocide stating that a 
day of remembrance was needed for 
victims of genocide, and I quote: "* * * 
especially those of Armenian ancestry 
who succumbed to the genocide perpe- 
trated in 1915." 

Mr. Speaker, on September 10, 1984, 
a nearly indentical resolution was 
passed in the House under suspension 
of the rules on a voice vote! 

In April of 1981, President Ronald 
Reagan eloquently acknowledged the 
Armenian genocide. He said: 

Like the genocide of the Armenians before 
it, and the genocide of the Cambodians 
which followed it— and like too many other 
such persecutions of too many other peo- 
ples—the lessons of the holocaust must 
never be forgotten. 

But, in 1982, in a note at the conclu- 
sion of a State Department report, it 
was concluded that— 

Because the historical record of the 1915 
events in Asia Minor is ambiguous, the De- 
partment of State does not endorse allega- 
tions that the Turkish Government commit- 
ted a genocide against the Armenian people. 

Well, I don't know which record was 
being examined, because there are 
over 24,000 documents compiled from 
the U.S. National Archives of State 
Department records from 1910 to 1929 
detailing the extermination of the Ar- 
menians. The Archives of the United 
States, Great Britain, France, Germa- 
ny, Austria, and Italy are open to 
scholars and amply document the Ar- 
menian genocide. 

Mr. Speaker, I think it is significant 
that Raphael Lemkin, the man who 
coined the term genocide to describe 
the deliberate destruction of a people, 
repeatedly used the Armenian geno- 
cide and the Jewish Holocaust as pro- 
totypes of the term genocide. 

I think it is significant that the U.S. 
Holocaust Memorial Council has ap- 
proved the inclusion of the Armenian 
genocide in their exhibits as an exam- 
ple of a planned extermination. 

Ataturk, the founder of the modern 
Turkish nation and widely regarded as 
the George Washington of Turkey, ac- 
knowledged the Armenian genocide 
under the Ottoman Empire and 
thought other Turks ought to ac- 
knowledge it as well so the healing 
process could begin. 

Mr. Speaker, I would like to con- 
clude my remarks with two quota- 
tions—the first is from Ambassador 
Morganthau, the United States Am- 
bassador to the Ottoman Empire 
during this time, referring to the Ar- 
menians said: 

When the Turkish authorities gave the 
orders for these deportations, they were 
merely giving the death warrant to a whole 
race; they understood this well, and, in their 




mm 



23042 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



conversations with me, they made no par- 
ticular attempt to conceal the fact. 

The second quote is from the noted 
English historian, Arnold Toynbee: 

The atrociousness of the two great twenti- 
eth century wars was aggravated by "geno- 
cide" (i.e. the wholesale extermination of ci- 
vilian populations). In the First World War 
the Turks committed genocide against the 
Armenians; in the Second World War, the 
Germans committed genocide against the 
Jews. 

Mr. Speaker, the genocide occurred! 
D 1140 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
myself such time as I may consume. 

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 238 
should be defeated outright. 

This rule would bring up a resolu- 
tion that will mean nothing but trou- 
ble for the United States interests in a 
very strategic corner of the world. 

The resolution made in order by this 
rule, House Joint Resolution 132 desig- 
nates April 24 as a day of remem- 
brance of events that occurred over 70 
years ago in Asia Minor. 

The joint resolution is offensive to 
the people of Turkey, it is offensive to 
the Government of Turkey. It is not a 
constructive way for Congress to 
honor the ancestors of American Ar- 
menians. 

Mr. Speaker, consideration of this 
resolution is guaranteed to strain our 
bilateral and treaty relationships with 
the Republic of Turkey. Its passage 
might well lead to an outright rupture 
of diplomatic ties. 

The Republic of Turkey is one of 
our most valuable allies in the cause of 
peace and freedom, and is one of the 
most important members of the North 
American Treaty Organization. 

As one who is concerned about the 
future security interests in the Middle 
East, I can see no good reason for us to 
even consider the resolution. The best 
way for the House to deal with this of- 
fensive measure is to take it off the 
floor program, and the way to do that 
is to defeat this rule. 

The rule is procedurally unfair. The 
rule limits time for amendments to 2 
hours, and it tramples on the minori- 
ty's right to offer a motion to recom- 
mit with instructions. 

Mr. Speaker, when this resolution 
was last considered, the legislative 
process was stalled by its sponsors. 

In December 1985, the House re- 
fused to adopt an amendment and the 
majority managers offered a motion to 
rise the Committee of the Whole, 
rather than allow the House to pro- 
ceed further. 

Pending when the Committee rose 
was an amendment in the nature of a 
substitute. In case the substitute 
failed, I was prepared as the ranking 
minority member of the committee, to 
offer a motion to recommit with in- 
structions. 

Mr. Speaker, we never got to that 
point in 1985. Under this rule we won't 



be able to get there again. Two rules 
of the House, clause 4 of rule XVI and 
clause 1 of rule XVII, protect and 
guarantee the right to offer a motion 
to recommit. 

This rule throws the Rules of House 
by the wayside. The Members opposed 
to the resolution are treated in an 
unfair and high-handed manner by 
this rule. 

Mr. Speaker, the wording of the res- 
olution purports to describe historical 
events. However, there are implica- 
tions in the way these events are de- 
scribed. The wording of the resolution 
casts aspersions upon our faithful ally, 
Turkey. 

House Joint Resolution 132 does 
nothing at all to heal the differences 
that have grown over the years be- 
tween the people of Armenian ances- 
try and the people of Turkey ancestry. 

The sponsors of the resolution place 
the House in a position of ratifying 
some history in such a way as to favor 
one point of view over another, and I 
do not think we should do that. 

It is absolutely senseless for us to 
commemorate this history when the 
words themselves are enough to cause 
mindless terrorism against a nation's 
citizens and diplomats. 

Mr. Speaker, I am not a world histo- 
rian. As the ranking Republican 
member of the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service, where this 
and similar resolutions have been con- 
sidered, I have learned a great deal 
about the history and the controversy 
involved here. 

There were inhumane events that 
occurred during the war between the 
Russian Empire and the Ottoman 
Empire in the area then known as An- 
atolia. The war victimized hundreds of 
thousands of people. There were 
Christian victims, there were Muslim 
victims. There were Armenian victims, 
as well as Turkish victims. Most of the 
inhumane events occurred in 1915 and 
1916. 

The ravages of war took a terrible 
toll, there is no doubt about that. 
Both the Ottoman Empire and the 
Russian Empire were ruthless in that 
war, but the Ottoman Empire was 
ended by the Turkish revolution in 
1922. And the present Republic of 
Turkey was formed in 1923. 

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of 
my time. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 2 min- 
utes to the gentlewoman from Califor- 
nia [Mrs. Boxer]. 

Mrs. BOXER. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this 
rule, and urge my colleagues to do the 
same, so we can settle this business 
once and for all. Today, let us pass the 
rule and we must answer two ques- 
tions. Did the Armenian genocide 
occur, and if so, should we commemo- 



rate the genocide? The answer is an 
absolute, unequivocal, yes. During the 
period 1915-23, the Ottoman Empire 
undertook the incomprehensible task 
of erasing any trace of the Armenian 
people, and committed an atrocity 
which opened the door for the Jewish 
genocide but one generation later. His- 
tory tragically records the reports of 
the survivors, and reveals indisputably 
that the Ottoman Turks succeeded all 
too well in their attempted task. 

The fact is that the Armenian geno- 
cide is very well documented, and I 
find it extremely distressing and mind- 
boggling all to bear references to the 
genocide as "alleged," "claimed," 
"charged," or "disputed." The late 
U.S. Ambassador to Turkey Henry 
Morgenthau, who was in Turkey from 
1913-16, affirmed in his memoirs that 
the Ottoman Government clearly un- 
derstood it was "giving the death war- 
rant to a whole race; they understood 
this well, and, in their conversations 
with me, they made no particular at- 
tempt to conceal this fact." 

We have access to literally thou- 
sands of pages of testimony by survi- 
vors describing the endless raping, 
murder, mutilation, and enforced star- 
vation. Without getting into the gory 
details, let me just relate to you what 
one German eyewitness, a missionary 
and teacher in Aleppo, described. 
After reporting the various horrors, 
the hacking off of hands, the piles of 
convulsive bodies, the slitting of 
throats, he concludes that "the object 
of the deportation is the extermina- 
tion of the whole Armenian nation." 

I have heard the argument from 
those opposed to this resolution, that 
the passage of this resolution will put 
a thorn in the side of our NATO ally, 
Turkey. 

I feel very strongly that to let issues 
of political expediency enter into this 
debate is to desecrate the memory of 
the 1.5 million Armenians who were 
wiped from the face of the Earth be- 
tween 1915 and 1923, and erases the 
lesson we might draw from their trage- 
dy. Two years ago, upon receiving the 
Congressional Gold Medal of Achieve- 
ment, Elie Wiesel remarked that the 
issue of the genocide of millions "tran- 
scends politics and diplomacy. The 
issue here is not politics, but good and 
evil." Mr. Wiesel is right, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote yes on this rule 
and the resolution and in doing so 
state for all the world to see that 
genocide must not take a back seat to 
geopolitics. We must stand on our 
principles and make a statement that 
will say clearly that the United States 
of America remembers the slaughter 
of Armenians, respects the memory of 
the victims, and is vigilant to ensure 
that genocide does not happen again. 

Let me add that remembrance of the 
more recent Jewish Holocaust perpe- 
trated by the German Government of 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23043 



the time has not and does not adverse- 
ly affect our relations with present- 
day Germany. I do not condemn the 
Turks of today, far from it, and this 
must be clearly understood. As Elie 
Wiesel said about the Jewish tragedy 
one generation later, "I do not believe 
in collective guilt nor in collective re- 
sponsibility. Only the killers were 
guilty, their sons and daughters are 
not." 

So why should we commemorate the 
Armenian genocide? H.G. Wells once 
remarked that "Human history be- 
comes more and more a race between 
education and catastrophe." That is a 
race we must win. Education is our 
only weapon against catastrophe. We 
must learn from the past, we cannot 
just close our eyes to it because it 
makes us uncomfortable. 

We commemorate the Armenian 
genocide not just for its victims, but 
with an eye to the future. In 1939, 
with his own extermination program 
underway, Adolf Hitler remarked, 
"Who still talks nowadays of the ex- 
termination of the Armenians?" Sev- 
enty-two years after the Ottoman 
Turkish Empire began a system of 
genocide against the Armenian popu- 
lation that left 1.5 million dead, we re- 
spond to Adolf Hitler, We do! We re- 
member! I implore my colleagues to re- 
member the tragedy of the Armenian 
genocide, so that we can truly make 
the claim, never again. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, for pur- 
poses of debate only, I yield 3 minutes 
to the gentleman from Mississippi 
[Mr. Lott], the distinguished minority 
whip, and a member of the Committee 
on Rules. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman for yielding me this time. 

Mr. Speaker, just as some things are 
better left unsaid, some bills are better 
left unconsidered. This is one such in- 
stance in which the measure involved 
should not have been reported from 
the authorizing committee, should not 
have been granted a rule from the 
Rules Committee, and should not be 
taken up on this floor today. 

This is one case in which, even if you 
should agree with the terms of the 
rule itself, which I don't, you would be 
justified in voting against the rule on 
grounds that the measure it makes in 
order has no business even being con- 
sidered by this House. Why? Because 
this measure, House Joint Resolution 
132, has profound, adverse foreign 
policy implications for our relations 
with one of our staunchest NATO 
allies. And, as much as the proponents 
might protest that this is not aimed at 
the current government, the fact re- 
mains that the government and people 
of that country do perceive this as a 
direct affront. And, when it comes to 
foreign relations, perceptions are ev- 
erything. 

Mr. Speaker, our Secretary of State, 
in a letter sent just yesterday to our 



ranking Republican on the Rules 
Committee [Mr. Quillen], urged 
against even granting a rule in the 
Rules Committee on grounds that the 
joint resolution could do serious harm 
to our relations with the Government 
of Turkey— a country which he terms 
"an important ally of the United 
States, a partner in the NATO and the 
Atlantic Alliance, and a key player in 
the Middle East and Europe." The 
Secretary goes on to remind us that a 
similar resolution in 1985, and I quote, 
"provoked a public outcry in Turkey 
and prompted the Turkish Parliament 
to review relations with the United 
States." 

I, therefore, appeal to my colleagues 
on foreign policy grounds alone to 
vote against this rule so that we do not 
unnecessarily embarrass our own Gov- 
ernment and jeopardize our continu- 
ing good relations with such an impor- 
tant ally. 

Mr. Speaker, the rule itself is fur- 
ther embarrassment and insult to the 
membership of this House, on both 
sides of the aisle. Once again we have 
a restrictive rule. 

This one places a 2-hour limit on the 
amendment process and denies the mi- 
nority its usual prerogative to offer in- 
structions in a motion to recommit. 
Ironically, while the chairman of the 
authorizing committee had originally 
asked for a reasonable time limit on 
amendments in his letter of request 
for a rule, he withdrew that request in 
his testimony Monday and indicated 
that a time limit would not be neces- 
sary because there was no attempt to 
filibuster this by amendment. Never- 
theless, the Rules Committee decided 
to give him the time limit anyway. I 
tried to remove the 2-hour amendment 
limit from the rule, but was defeated 
on a party-line vote. 

The same thing happened when I 
tried to restore the minority's right to 
offer instructions in a motion to re- 
commit. A lame excuse was offered 
that this was denied in the rule for 
fear we could somehow broaden the 
scope of the resolution in the motion 
to recommit. But, in checking with the 
Parliamentarian afterwards my staff 
learned this was not possible given lan- 
guage elsewhere in the rule. In other 
words, there are no sound grounds for 
preventing instructions. This is a 
purely partisan slap. 

Mr. Speaker, I realize the majority 
party sets the agenda around here and 
often dictates the procedural terms 
under which that agenda will be con- 
sidered. And the minority quite often 
disagrees with that agenda, or at least 
the specific terms of bills reported by 
majority-controlled committees. And, 
we quite often disagree with the proce- 
dures which deny us the full opportu- 
nity we think we should have to 
present our alternatives. That's the 
nature of the legislative process. 



But, for that process to succeed over 
the long haul, there must be a certain 
degree of comity and fairness— of bi- 
partisan cooperation and mutual re- 
spect. When that begins to break 
down, when the minority is repeatedly 
given the back hand and the empty 
hand, this institution is in trouble. 
And that is especially the case with a 
bill like this that has potentially seri- 
ous foreign policy implications. Here, 
of all places, we should be giving the 
President greater deference as our 
chief foreign policy architect and 
spokesman, and we should be proceed- 
ing with greater bipartisanship in the 
Congress. Let's vote down this rule 
and avoid further embarrassment to 
ourselves and our country. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 1% 
minutes to the gentleman from Illinois 
[Mr. Annunzio]. 

Mr. ANNUNZIO. Mr. Speaker, I 
thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time. 

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support 
of the rule on House Joint Resolution 
132 to designate a "National Day of 
Remembrance of the Armenian Geno- 
cide of 1915-1923." 

This year marks the 72d anniversary 
of the genocide of the Armenian 
people by the Government of the 
Ottoman Empire before the establish- 
ment of the Republic of Turkey. But 
to this day Turkey's Government and 
people deny that the genocide ever 
happened. Turkey is denying reality. 
Turkey is denying the truth. And ap- 
parently Turkey wants to deny the 
truth forever. 

Self-deception may be good enough 
for Turkey, but it should not be good 
enough for America. Can we honestly 
ignore the existence of documented 
records in our own State Department 
which give eye witness accounts of the 
Armenian genocide? And what about 
the respected New York Times? Can 
we honestly ignore over 194 articles 
which appeared from 1913 through 
1922 outlining the hideous manner in 
which Armenians died in Turkey? 

The facts are there. The truth is 
there for all to see. The only question 
on this floor is whether or not we, as 
Representatives of the people of the 
United States, have the courage to ac- 
knowledge a simple historical truth. 

Unfortunately, the current adminis- 
tration appears to be buckling under 
foreign pressure. Fortunately, howev- 
er, the Members of this Congress have 
the opportunity right now to show the 
world we are not afraid of the truth. 

I urge my colleagues to join me in 
voting "yes" on the rule and "yes" on 
this resolution. Let us pass House 
Joint Resolution 132 overwhelmingly, 
and let us get this matter behind us 
once and for all. 



m 



23044 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



D 1150 



Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 
minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Horton], my colleague on 
the Post Office and Civil Service Com- 
mittee. 

Mr. HORTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the gentleman for yielding time to me. 
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposi- 
tion to the rule, and to the resolution. 
The rule itself is restrictive; it unduly 
limits the type and range of amend- 
ments that can be offered, it is not an 
open rule in that debate on amend- 
ments is limited to 2 hours, and a 
motion to recommit cannot be offered 
with instructions. Further, the proce- 
dure of even granting a rule for a com- 
memorative resolution is unique to 
House Joint Resolution 132 and an 
earlier version of this measure. 

Let's look at the procedure. I am a 
member of the House Post Office and 
Civil Service Committee. We require, 
except where the chairman and a ma- 
jority of committee members agree, 
218 cosponsors to report a resolution. 
Proponents of House Joint Resolution 
132 could not secure 218 cosponsors. 
The resolution needed and received an 
exception to our committee rule. Com- 
memorative resolutions, once reported 
from our committee, are always con- 
sidered on either the Unanimous Con- 
sent or Suspension Calendars. 

Not this commemorative. This reso- 
lution, accusing the Ottoman 
Empire — today Turkey— of genocide 
against the Armenians in the early 
part of this century, is the only com- 
memorative of which I am aware to 
ever be granted a rule. A rule allowing 
for a simple majority vote on a com- 
memorative resolution is highly un- 
usual. 

But this is no ordinary commemora- 
tive resolution, contrary to what you 
might hear. It is very controversial 
and has far-reaching foreign policy im- 
plications, as has been explained by 
Secretary of State Shultz in a letter 
each of us has received. No hearings 
have been held to air and discuss these 
issues. 

Putting aside the procedure, Turkey 
is our friend and a critically important 
ally. Look at the map. Turkey is bor- 
dered by Iran, Iraq, Syria, and the 
Soviet Union. We don't have too many 
friends in that part of the world. Does 
it make sense, then, to offend an ally 
which shares the largest border with 
the Soviet Union— 300 miles— of any 
ally, which has the largest U.S. Air 
Force base between Europe and the 
Philippine Islands, and which is the 
site for critical NATO and United 
States-Soviet monitoring facilities? 

On the merits of the resolution, his- 
tory doesn't support a genocide. Trag- 
ically, hundreds of thousands of Arme- 
nians living in eastern Turkey, where 
the Ottoman Turks battled their Rus- 
sian enemy, were killed; they were a 
people caught in the midst and emo- 



tion of a raging war. There were atroc- 
ities. However, hundreds of thousands 
of Armenians living in western 
Turkey, far from the eastern front, 
were unaffected. This belies the defi- 
nition of genocide— an intentional, sys- 
tematic policy to exterminate a 
people. 

You will hear that some midlevel 
State Department bureaucrat in 1981 
wrote a memo that changed our Na- 
tion's longstanding support of a recog- 
nition of an Armenian genocide. Our 
policy was wrong. It should have been 
changed. It was no midlevel bureau- 
crat, however, that prompted our reex- 
amination of what we had previously 
considered another in a long list of 
commemoratives. Our examination of 
this as an issue started in 1976 with 
the murder of Turkish diplomats by 
Armenian extremist and terrorist 
groups. Since 1976, more than 70 
Turkish diplomats and innocent by- 
standers, including 4 Americans, have 
been assassinated. These extremist 
groups publicly state their objectives, 
which are threefold; first, recognition 
that a genocide occurred; second, repa- 
rations by the Turkish Government; 
and third, establishment of an Arme- 
nian state on Turkish soil. 

Finally, regardless of how inconse- 
quential we consider this or most com- 
memoratives, House Joint Resolution 
132 is the No. 1 public and media issue 
in Turkey. It is important to the Turk- 
ish people and their elected represent- 
atives. It is offensive to them. The 
Turkish people are justifiably proud 
of their record of religious and cultur- 
al toleration. In World War II, for ex- 
ample, as in the Inquisition before it, 
Turkey was a haven to literally tens of 
thousands of Jews who were fleeing 
barbarism, tyranny, terror, and certain 
death. With respect to World War II, 
even the doors to our Nation were 
closed to Jewish immigrants. It is easy 
to understand why the Turkish people 
object to a resolution accusing the 
Ottoman Empire, to which they trace 
their roots, of the most heinous crime 
against humanity. 

I urge that my colleagues join me in 
defeating this rule. 

The Secretary of State, 
Washington, DC, August 4, 1987. 
Hon. Prank Horton, 
House of Representatives. 

Dear Mr. Horton: I am writing to you 
personally to express the Administration's 
strong opposition to H.J. Res. 132 the so- 
called "Armenian Resolution" and to urge 
you to vote against it. 

We are seriously concerned that passage 
of this bill would significantly damage our 
relations with Turkey, a NATO ally and 
friend of the United States. We have major 
national security interests in preserving and 
strengthening our relations with Turkey 
whose government and people are offended 
by this Resolution. I understand the mo- 
tives of the sponsors of this resolution; how- 
ever, I am seriously concerned not only at 
the damage the Resolution will do to our re- 
lationship with Turkey, but also that it will 



be used by Armenian terrorists, who have 
murdered 45 Turkish diplomats since 1975, 
to justify their past acts and future actions. 
I know that we are all determined to defeat 
international terrorism. 

Because of these compelling reasons, I ask 
that you vote against H.J. Res. 132. 
Sincerely yours, 

George P. Shultz. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 2 Vfe 
minutes to the honorable gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Kennedy]. 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in support of the resolution to recog- 
nize April 24 as a day to remember the 
Armenian genocide. 

The State Department would like us 
to vote against this resolution because 
Turkey is an important ally where we 
have many military installations. Mr. 
Speaker, I submit that this is not an 
issue of allies and military strategy. 
Turkey is not going to run out of 
NATO and into the arms of Russia, or 
Iran, or anyone else just because we 
pass this resolution. Let us stop kow- 
towing to the Ottoman regime of a 
bygone era. Should we not recognize 
what the British have been doing to 
the Irish in order to keep our missiles 
in England? Let us stop pretending a 
terrible wrong never occurred. Recog- 
nizing an event that took place 80 
years ago should not be the type of 
issue to rearrange strong political 
friendships and change areas of 
mutual interest. 

This is not a question of military 
bases. It is a gut instinct about right 
and wrong. America is a melting pot, 
and we have to react to the legitimate 
concerns of people in our own country. 
A wrong was committed against the 
Armenian people. A tragedy occurred, 
and we in the U.S. Congress should be 
responsible enough to acknowledge it. 

Now we've been presented with a 
group of revisionist scholars who say 
this tragedy never happened, and our 
own State Department sides with 
those denials. But some of the greatest 
thinkers and leaders of the 20th cen- 
tury, including Theodore Roosevelt, 
Winston Churchill, and Arnold Toyn- 
bee, all referred to the massacres as 
genocide against the Armenian Chris- 
tian minority. Major newspapers in 
the United States and around the 
world reported the wholesale slaugh- 
ter of Armenians. U.S. Ambassador 
Henry Morgenthau and many Ameri- 
can missionaries gave eyewitness ac- 
counts of the massace of Armenian 
Christians. Even Kemal Ataturk, the 
father of modern-day Turkey deplored 
the killing of Armenians by his Otto- 
man predecessors. 

History tells us it is easy to forget 
atrocities. When Adolf Hitler was 
planning the invasion of Poland, he 
told his generals that the killing of the 
Armenians had already been forgot- 
ten. Such forgetfulness can be danger- 
ous for humanity. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23045 



In recognizing the suffering of Ar- 
menians, we also recognize the impor- 
tant contributions of a large group of 
American citizens. Armenians came to 
America because it has always been a 
place where persecuted people can 
make a home. They came here to 
freely practice the Christian religion, 
but they also worked hard to maintain 
their unique culture and language. 
Today there is no independent Arme- 
nian nation, but there are Armenian 
churches and schools and newspapers 
wherever Armenian Americans live. 
The freedom to keep that culture alive 
is what makes America a great nation. 

April 24 is the day Armenian Ameri- 
cans call Martyr's Day. In that day, 
members of the Armenian community 
in my district close their shops, 
schools, and markets and go to church. 
By recognizing their day, we com- 
memorate not only their suffering, but 
their achievement as American citi- 
zens. We will simply acknowledge the 
sorrows of Armenians everywhere, and 
tell them Americans remember. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from New 
York [Mr. Solarz], a member of the 
Post Office and Civil Service Commit- 
tee and of the Foreign Affairs Com- 
mittee. 

Mr. SOLARZ. Mr. Speaker, no one 
here denies that hundreds of thou- 
sands of Armenians and maybe more 
lost their lives, often in a cruel and 
barbarous fashion, in the second 
decade of the 20th century in eastern 
Antalya. There is no Member of this 
House, on either side of the aisle, who 
is indifferent to the sorrow and the 
suffering of the Armenian people. 

Nevertheless, it seems to me that the 
adoption of this resolution would be a 
serious mistake. 

It would be a mistake, first of all, be- 
cause it would place in jeopardy our 
relationship to one of our most impor- 
tant NATO allies. I recognize it is very 
difficult for Members of the House to 
believe that a nonbinding resolution 
like this, dozens of which we pass 
every year without thinking twice 
about them, could possibly be taken 
seriously by a foreign country, and yet 
anyone who has been to Turkey, 
anyone who is knowledgeable about 
Turkey, knows that this would have 
very serious consequences for our rela- 
tionship with that country. 

A few weeks ago, the President of 
Turkey, following the adoption of a 
similar resolution by the European 
Parliament, said that if the Congress 
adopts this resolution, Turkey would 
have to consider leaving NATO. I do 
not believe, even if the resolution is 
adopted, that the Turks will leave 
NATO, but the very fact that the 
President of Turkey could say that 
they would consider leaving the alli- 
ance should suggest that the adoption 
of this resolution will, indeed, have 
negative consequences for our rela- 



tionship with one of our most impor- 
tant NATO allies, which we cannot 
afford. 

We have to consider the conse- 
quences of what we do. This resolution 
will do nothing to resuscitate the dead, 
but it could jeopardize our capacity to 
defend the living. 

Its adoption would also be a mistake 
because the fundamental factual 
premise upon which the resolution is 
premised; namely, that what hap- 
pened to the Armenian people was a 
genocide, is itself a matter of signifi- 
cant historic dispute and debate. We 
have heard how Arnold Toynbee and 
Rafael Lempkin and Ambassador Mor- 
ganthau and others all asserted that 
what happened to the Armenians was 
a genocide; but 2 years ago every 
Member of this House received a cable 
signed by the overwhelming majority 
of the leading historians of the Otto- 
man Empire, the Turkish Republic, 
and the Middle East in our country, 
urging us to vote against the resolu- 
tion on the grounds that it is by no 
means clear that what happened to 
the Armenians was an example of 
genocide. 

Here is what such preeminent Amer- 
ican scholars on the region, such as 
Bernard Lewis of Princeton and J.C. 
Hurewitz of Columbia, said about this 
resolution: 

As for the charge of "genocide:" No signa- 
tory of this statement wishes to minimize 
the scope of Armenian suffering. We are 
likewise cognizant that it cannot be viewed 
as separate from the suffering experienced 
by the Muslim inhabitants of the region. 
The weight of evidence so far uncovered 
points in the direction of serious inter-com- 
munal warfare (perpetrated by Muslim and 
Christian irregular forces), complicated by 
disease, famine, suffering and massacres in 
Anatolia and adjoining areas during the 
First World War. Indeed, throughout the 
years in question, the region was the scene 
of more or less continuous warfare, not 
unlike the tragedy which has gone on in 
Lebanon for the past decade. The resulting 
death toll among both Muslim and Chris- 
tian communities of the region was im- 
mense. But much more remains to be discov- 
ered before historians will be able to sort 
out precisely responsibility between warring 
and innocent, and to identify the causes for 
the events which resulted in the death or 
removal of large numbers of the eastern An- 
atolian population, Christian and Muslim 
alike. 

As the above comments illustrate, the his- 
tory of the Ottoman-Armenians is much de- 
bated among scholars, many of who do not 
agree with the historical assumptions em- 
bodied in the wording of H.J. Res. 192. By 
passing the resolution Congress will be at- 
tempting to determine by legislation which 
side of a historial question is correct. Such a 
resolution, based on historically question- 
able assumptions, can only damage this 
cause of honest historical enquiry, and 
damage the credibility of the American leg- 
islative process. 

There is a distinction between mas- 
sacres and a genocide. Nobody denies 
that hundreds of thousands of Arme- 
nians lost their lives. We bemoan their 



fate, but whether or not it constituted 
a systematic effort to exterminate an 
entire race is apparently open to dis- 
pute. 

I think it would, therefore, be a mis- 
take for us to insert ourselves into the 
midst of this raging historic debate. 

My friends, I think that in view of 
the consequences of the adoption of 
this resolution for our relationship 
with Turkey, in view of the dispute 
over whether or not what happened to 
the Armenian people was a genocide, 
it would be both reckless and wrong to 
adopt this resolution, and I therefore 
urge the defeat of the rule and the re- 
jection of the resolution if the rule 
should be approved. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Califor- 
nia [Mr. Lungren]. 

Mr. LUNGREN. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in support of this rule and the resolu- 
tion in front of us. 

Some have said we ought not to sup- 
port the resolution because it has a 
time factor, but if you do not support 
the rule, we will never get to the reso- 
lution. 

One thing we in the United States 
seem to have an abundance of, not a 
lack of, is an abundance of a loss of a 
sense of history. 

D 1205 

We do not understand history often- 
times, and unfortunately we often- 
times deny history. 

I think one of the real problems in 
this debate is that because of political 
circumstances there is an effort to 
deny history because we are fearful if 
we admit history some others may 
take political action against us. 

I do not think that is in the best in- 
terest of the United States ultimately. 
I recall when Ronald Reagan, before 
he was President, was addressing this 
issue. He spoke out eloquently on 
behalf of a recognition of the losses 
suffered by Armenians who are now 
dispersed around the country. 

It just seems to me that we owe it to 
the citizens of this country to recog- 
nize history and to hopefully learn 
from history, and to say that the Otto- 
man Empire was responsible for this is 
not a criticism of the present Turkish 
Government. It should not be seen as 
such, and I think we ought to step for- 
ward and recognize this for what it is, 
a statement of history, an acknowledg- 
ment for what has occurred and a 
lesson for the future. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Cali- 
fornia [Mr. Bosco]. 

Mr. BOSCO. Mr. Speaker, despite 
my long friendship with the gentle- 
man from California, the author of 
House Joint Resolution 132, I oppose 
the rule because even the consider- 
ation of this resolution will do serious 



23046 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



mischief to U.S. foreign policy and at 
the same time do nothing to settle the 
longstanding hostilities between the 
Turks and the Armenians. 

There is no difference of opinion in 
this Chamber over genocide. There are 
not some people for it and others 
against. We all deeply abhor the 
hatred that leads to atrocities— wheth- 
er it be the deaths of thousands of Ar- 
menians or the assassination of dozens 
of Turkish diplomats and several 
Americans. 

But Congress should understand 
that there is, sadly, no middle ground 
between the Turks and the Armeni- 
ans. There is no magic wand, least of 
all this resolution, that we can wave to 
lessen the hatred, settle hotly contest- 
ed historical facts, or end the terror- 
ism that still goes on. 

While we can't make the situation 
better, we can make it worse. We can 
ignore the strongest pleas of our Sec- 
retary of State, George Shultz, and 
greatly compromise vital United 
States interests in modern-day 
Turkey. We can subject the present 
Turkish Government which of course 
had nothing to do with the events of 
1915— to deep humiliation just as they 
are taking more and more steps to 
align themselves with the United 
States. 

Mr. Speaker, recently a "Dear Col- 
league" letter complimented the Euro- 
pean Parliament for passing a resolu- 
tion similar to the one proposed to be 
debated by Congress. The "Dear Col- 
league" said we should follow suit. 
What the letter did not say is that 
only the most radical and liberal ele- 
ments of the European Parliament 
even considered this resolution— the 
vast majority of members boycotted it. 
Of some 518 members, only 144 voted 
for the resolution, and all but 18 were 
Communists, Socialists, and Greens. 
Great Britain and West Germany, 
among others, repudiated the move. 

Just as our friends in the European 
Parliament boycotted this resolution, 
so should we. It is truly a wolf in 
sheep's clothing, and even the consid- 
eration of it can do no good and cause 
much harm. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Ken- 
tucky [Mr. Hubbard]. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Ken- 
tucky [Mr. Hubbard]. 

Mr. HUBBARD. Mr. Speaker, today 
could be the final day the U.S. House 
of Representatives will meet until 
Wednesday, September 9. 

This being the situation, what are 
we debating on the House side of the 
U.S. Capitol today? Is it the omnibus 
trade bill? No. Are we debating rescue 
legislation for the faltering Farm 
Credit System? No. 

Are we debating welfare system re- 
forms (H.R. 1720)? No. 



Are we debating tax changes? No. 

Indeed, it is incredible that we are 
into the annual ritual of rehashing 
the tragic Armenian genocide of 1915- 
23. 

I asked my constituents recently in 
western Kentucky which one country 
in the world is the target of an annual 
resolution attempting to embarrass it 
in the U.S. House of Representatives. 
Some guessed it is the Soviet Union. 
Others guessed it is Iran. A few 
guessed Cuba. 

Those constituents who assumed the 
country that receives the annual bash- 
ing on our House floor is Russia or 
Iran or Cuba were wrong. 

Yes; it is incredible that our NATO 
ally and good friend Turkey is the 
victim, even again today. 

Yes: Turkey, our friend which bor- 
ders the Soviet Union, Iran, Iraq, and 
Syria, is being attacked on the House 
floor again today. 

As a Democrat and an opponent of 
House Joint Resolution 132, I read 
again the letter of our Secretary of 
State George P. Shultz, regarding this 
resolution. Earlier today my Republi- 
can friend and colleague, Hon. Frank 
Horton, read this same letter from 
Mr. Shultz. It is certainly worthy of 
repeating now. 

The letter to each of us House Mem- 
bers reads as follows: 

The Secretary of State, 
Washington, August 4, 1987. 
Hon. Carroll Hubbard, Jr., 
House of Representatives. 

Dear Mr. Hubbard: I am writing to you 
personally to express the Administration's 
strong opposition to H.J. Res. 132, the so- 
called "Armenian Resolution" and to urge 
you to vote against it. 

We are seriously concerned that passage 
of this resolution would significantly 
damage our relations with Turkey, a NATO 
ally and friend of the United States. We 
have major national security interests in 
preserving and strengthening our relations 
with Turkey whose government and people 
are offended by this Resolution. I under- 
stand the motives of the sponsors of this 
resolution; however, I am seriously con- 
cerned not only at the damage the Resolu- 
tion will do to our relationship with Turkey, 
but also that it will be used by Armenian 
terrorists, who have murdered 45 Turkish 
diplomats since 1975, to justify their past 
acts and future actions. I know that we are 
all determined to defeat international ter- 
rorism. 

Because of these compelling reasons, I ask 
that you vote against H.J. Res. 132. 
Sincerely yours, 

George P. Shultz. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
[Mr. Leath]. 

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentleman yield? 

Mr. LEATH of Texas. I yield to the 
gentleman from Alabama. 

Mr. DICKINSON. Mr. Speaker, I 
want to go on record in firm opposi- 
tion to the rule. 

Mr. Speaker, once again, we are forced to 
debate the issue of the alleged genocide of 



the Armenian people that took place more 
than 70 years ago. Not only did this body 
debate, and soundly defeat this legislation on 
two separate occasions in the 99th Congress; 
but 69 American historians, all specializing in 
Turkish, Ottoman, and Middle Eastern studies, 
have publicly denounced the misrepresenta- 
tions and misleading intent of this resolution 
(H.J. Res. 132). 

There are three major points as to why the 
U.S. Congress should not even consider this 
issue, let alone approve a resolution to com- 
memorate its existence. 

The first point, which I have already raised, 
is the historical justification of the Armenian 
genocide which is undocumented and un- 
founded. The Ottoman Empire was experienc- 
ing a civil war between 1915 and 1923, and 
many important questions still remain unan- 
swered, including the affect of disease, 
famine, and the First World War. 

Second, this resolution would add fuel to 
the fire for Armenian terrorists avenging the 
so-called genocide of their ancestors. At this 
time, more than 270 deaths in 250 incidents 
worldwide, including the lives of 30 Turkish 
diplomats, have resulted from these malicious 
and unwarranted acts of terrorism. Yesterday, 
Secretary of State George Shultz sent a letter 
to Members of Congress, urging them to 
reject this measure as there are compelling 
national interest matters at stake. 

And finally, and probaly most importantly, is 
the fact that by approving this resolution, we 
would deeply offend the people of Turkey, 
and jeopardize our relationship with our most 
staunch and important ally in the NATO Alli- 
ance. Turkey's troop size of 569,000 is 
second only to the United States among the 
NATO forces. 

In light of the volatile situation in the Per- 
sian Gulf, the Iran/Iraq conflict and the Soviet 
invasion of Afghanistan, the last thing we 
need is to strain our relationship with Turkey. 

The Republic of Turkey is a vital contributor 
to Western security, and has been a terrific 
help in the stability of the Middle East due to 
their growing economic and diplomatic 
strength. Turkey also serves as a strategic 
stalwart in the Soviet's ability of becoming a 
key player in the Arab world. 

Turkey's major military installations contrib- 
ute significantly to NATO, including: basing for 
United States tactical fighter-bombers (F-4's); 
electromagnetic monitoring; radio investiga- 
tion; storage of war reserve materials, ammu- 
nition, and fuel; and radar warning and space 
monitoring. 

Through numerous secondary facilities, 25 
percent of NATO's intelligence information is 
gathered from Turkey, including: 

Monitoring Soviet strategic nuclear activi- 
ties; 

Military systems development; and 

Force and readiness movement. 

As you can see, Turkey plays an intricate 
and key role in the United States/NATO stra- 
tegic posture in the Middle East, as well as 
serving as a deterrent to further Soviet ag- 
gression. 

Turkey is not only a military friend to the 
United States, but is also a valued trading 
partner. In 1986, total United States exports to 
Turkey amounted to $1.1 billion, with United 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23047 



States imports from Turkey amounting to $0.7 
billion. That's a U.S. trade surplus of almost a 
half billion dollars. 

Among those products that we export to 
Turkey are: coal (increasing steadily since 
1984), shredded steel and iron, aircraft parts, 
wheat, fertilizers, truck and equipment parts, 
sugar, cotton, and rice. 

The EC Parliament recently approved a 
similar resolution to commemorate the so- 
called Armenian genocide, and are now expe- 
riencing an adverse trade climate with Turkey. 
France recently lost a very lucrative contract 
with Turkey for a radar system. 

Currently, there are several major Turkish 
contracts available for United States bids 
worth several billion dollars that include: ar- 
mored personnel carriers and several coal 
plants. 

I think we should carefully examine all of 
the ramifications that could result from the 
passage of such a resolution, and take a hard 
look at what Turkey means to the United 
States, in light of the highly sensitive and to- 
tally uncorroborated issue of Armenian geno- 
cide. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to 
defeat this resolution; the administration is 
adamantly opposed to it, it disputes fact, pro- 
motes and encourages terrorism, and threat- 
ens our relationship with a strong and impor- 
tant ally. 

Mr. McCURDY. Mr. Speaker, will 
the gentlman yield? 

Mr. LEATH of Texas. I yield to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma. 

Mr. McCURDY. I, too, rise in firm 
opposition to the resolution. 

Mr. LEATH of Texas. Mr. Speaker, 
this is a no-win situation. We are going 
to hear a great many good people, 
good Members of Congress and good 
Americans that are going to come to 
this well today and tell us how inno- 
cent this is and tell us how important 
this is. I do not think anybody in this 
Chamber disagrees with that feeling, 
and I think we all understand our 
friends who are emotionally involved 
in this issue, and we understand why. 

But, Mr. Speaker, ladies and gentle- 
men, there is one bottom line. That 
bottom line is will this harm the secu- 
rity interests of the United States, and 
the answer is "yes." We may not un- 
derstand that, we may say why do the 
Turks get upset about something like 
this. 

That is beside the point. The point is 
the President, the Secretary of State, 
our Ambassador to Turkey have certi- 
fied that. 

I was in Turkey 2 years ago when 
this resolution came up the first time 
to discuss NATO and the importance 
of NATO. They did not want to talk 
about that. The Turkish media wanted 
to talk about this. 

I do not think there is anybody in 
this Chamber that wants to harm the 
security interests of the United States. 
It does not have anything to do with 
genocide, it does not have anything to 
do with our feelings against what hap- 
pened to the Armenians. 



The bottom line is that everyone, 
the Ambassador to this country from 
Turkey, the President of Turkey, the 
Turkish people, say if you do this you 
hurt your security interests. 

Mr. Speaker, we do not need to do 
that. 

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. LEATH of Texas. I yield to the 
gentleman from West Virginia. 

Mr. WISE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate 
the gentleman yielding. I would like to 
say as one who voted for this resolu- 
tion a couple of years ago, who has 
done a lot of thinking on it and is now 
opposed to it, I hope every Member 
before he comes to vote for the rule 
will look at a map of Turkey and see 
what countries border Turkey. Iran, 
the Soviet Union, Iraq, Syria, and 
Turkey is our listening post to all of 
those areas, and this is a disastrous 
resolution. I hope we reject it. 

Mr. LEATH of Texas. I thank the 
gentleman. Just remember the bottom 
line. Have great respect for our friends 
involved in and have great understand- 
ing for the Armenian people, have 
great understanding for the reverence 
of this occasion, but let us not harm 
the security interests of this Nation. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, how 
much time do I have remaining? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Glickman). The gentleman from Mis- 
souri [Mr. Taylor] has 10 minutes re- 
maining and the gentleman from Mas- 
sachusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 10% 
minutes remaining. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Califor- 
nia [Mr. Moorhead]. 

Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, as a 
cosponsor of House Joint Resolution 
132, I rise in support of this rule and 
of this resolution. 

This is a resolution which is ex- 
tremely important to many of us in 
this Chamber and to many Americans 
around the country. I have many Ar- 
menian friends back in my hometown 
of Glendale, CA, and I have personally 
heard horrible stories of how the 
genocide affected them and their fam- 
ilies. They are not pretty stories. So, I 
know how much this resolution means 
to them and their families. I know 
how important passage is to the 
memories of their loved ones who per- 
ished in the slaughter. 

The purpose of this resolution is to 
set the historical record straight and 
to commemorate the victims of Arme- 
nian descent who were killed by the 
Ottoman Empire. The killings of Ar- 
menians began in the later part of the 
19th century and culminated in the 
great massacre of 1915 through 1923 
in which an additional 1.5 million Ar- 
menians died. Many of those who sur- 
vived were exiled from their home- 
lands. Needless to say, their losses and 
sufferings have been tremendous. 



We have debated this issue before on 
the floor of this House. We have com- 
memorated the genocide with special 
orders each April. In fact, in 1975 and 
1984 the House passed commemorative 
resolutions similar to House Joint Res- 
olution 132. 

Many of us have been working for a 
long time to get this resolution passed 
by the whole Congress. We have re- 
minded our colleagues each year of 
the historical facts which were record- 
ed by eyewitness accounts, press re- 
ports, and numerous official U.S. Gov- 
ernment documents since 1915. Yet we 
are still engaged in a debate over 
whether or not these events of history 
should be recognized and remembered. 

This is not a resolution condemning 
anyone or any government today for 
the actions that occurred many years 
ago. I stress this and I think we all rec- 
ognize this. No one holds the Turkish 
people or the present Government of 
Turkey responsible for acts committed 
by a past government. I would like to 
think we all know in our hearts what 
is right and what we should do on this 
resolution. 

No one can dispute that we have a 
moral obligation to recall and recog- 
nize the horrible nature of such a 
crime against humanity. We cannot 
ignore history or let others rewrite it 
by ignoring or omitting what has hap- 
pened. The efforts of those who wish 
to defeat this resolution offend all vic- 
tims of genocide. I hope that all Mem- 
bers in this House will reflect deeply 
on what we have been talking about 
and vote in favor of this resolution. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 
minutes and 30 seconds to the gentle- 
man from Wisconsin [Mr. Moody]. 

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. MOODY. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Ohio. 

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to the rule and to the reso- 
lution. 

Mr. MOODY. Mr. Speaker, I have a 
great deal of respect for the authors of 
this resolution and for its supporters. 
Rick Lehman is a very good friend of 
mine and Dave Bonior and all of the 
others who support it are top Mem- 
bers of this House, and I am very fond 
of them and I agree with them about 
98 percent of the time. I have a great 
deal of respect for the Armenian 
people. I lived and worked for 5 years 
in that region of the world, not in 
Turkey, but in the countries surround- 
ing Turkey, and I had Armenians work 
with me, and they are wonderful 
people and I love them. 

And I am a strong human rights ad- 
vocate. I do not buy the argument we 
need this just for military reasons. 

But from my personal experience of 
5 years in that region of the world, 
and from visiting Turkey, even though 
I once was a coauthor of this resolu- 



23048 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



tion, I am now opposed to it, as pain- 
ful as it is. 

It puts this Congress, it puts the 
stamp of this Congress on a particular 
interpretation of history which is 
highly disputed. Despite the previous 
comments, this is a highly disputed in- 
terpretation of history. 

There were massacres; yes. There 
was unspeakable killing and atrocities; 
yes. But was it genocide? 

Genocide is the most dastardly 
charge one can level against anyone 
because it implies a systematic, pre- 
meditated murder of a whole group of 
people. That is not what was happen- 
ing in Turkey. As bad as what was 
happening is, it was not genocide. 

What was the context? The context 
was a civil war within a world war. The 
Armenian minority in the Anatolian 
section of Turkey rose up in this 
period of chaos. There was no effec- 
tive government at all, much less a 
context to carry out premeditated 
murder. They rose up, declared inde- 
pendence, and they were being armed 
by the Russian-Armenian factions. 
There was fighting going on behind 
the lines of the Turkish troops pro- 
tecting Turkey against an invasion by 
the Soviet Union, and in that context 
they attempted to deport the Armeni- 
an population in that area, very much 
the way we attempted to deport the 
Japanese-Americans from our country. 

In that context there was no effec- 
tive control. Armenians were killing 
one another, villages were killing one 
another and 4 to 5 million civilians, 
that is non-Armenian Turkish citizens, 
were killed. There was chaos, there 
was killing all around, there was star- 
vation. People were moved without 
adequate provisions for health care or 
food. It was wintertime and people 
died of exposure. No one doubts the 
suffering, and almost no one has suf- 
fered more than the Armenians. 

But the term genocide is just far too 
strong to apply. Sixty eminent schol- 
ars in America, not revisionist histori- 
ans, as someone put it, but 60 eminent 
scholars from Chicago, IL, from Wis- 
consin, from California, have said that 
this is not genocide, as bad as it was. 

The archives of the relevant coun- 
tries have not been opened, as the gen- 
tleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] 
said. They are still closed, and the 
Balkan countries have not opened 
their archives to settle this matter. 

The problem is putting our stamp of 
approval will validate the rationale 
used by Armenian terrorists to assassi- 
nate, in cold blood, Turkish diplomats 
around the world. It will deeply offend 
the people of Turkey who have had a 
long history of, whatever problems 
one may have with them, protecting 
minorities. In fact, Turkey was the 
only country in the region who began 
to take in Jews in World War II during 
the Holocaust. When every other 
country in the world, including the 



United States, would not accept them, 
they were a sanctuary for Jewish citi- 
zens. Turkey took them, and they 
have a long and enviable record of pro- 
tection of minorities, and we are de- 
faming this country with this resolu- 
tion. 

D 1220 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 30 sec- 
onds to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Matsui]. 

Mr. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
strong support of the resolution desig- 
nating April 24 a national day of re- 
membrance to reflect on the brutal in- 
humanity of the Turkish massacre of 
1.5 million Armenians from 1915 to 
1923. The Armenian people deserve of- 
ficial recognition by the United States 
that they were the object of genocide 
by the Ottoman Turks during World 
War I. 

The blood spilled during the Turkish 
pogrom against the Armenians is a 
stain on the history of mankind that 
we must acknowledge. It is an ugly re- 
minder of the kind of inhumanity 
humans are capable of. A day of re- 
membrance would serve as an impor- 
tant reminder that we must always 
remain on guard against such acts of 
brutality. 

The United States is a nation which 
demands the recognition of human 
rights— by its own Government and 
the Governments of other nations. If 
we in this House are to be true to that 
principle we must stand in support of 
this resolution— a resolution calling 
for a day to remember what can 
happen when disregard of human 
rights reaches the extreme. 

I ask the House to give official rec- 
ognition that the Armenian genocide 
was an act which must be condemned. 
Passage of this resolution will show 
the world that we will not forget one 
of history's most brutal episodes. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Virgin- 
ia [Mr. Bateman], a member of the 
Committee on Armed Services. 

Mr. BATEMAN. Mr. Speaker, in this 
precious little bit of time, let me try 
and make my point by reference to a 
provision in "Roberts Rules of Order" 
which allows to a member of a body 
the right to interpose an objection to 
the consideration of a question. This is 
done in order to allow a Member "who 
believes it would be strongly undesir- 
able for the motion even to come 
before the assembly." 

If we were governed today by Rob- 
erts rules, I would interpose such an 
objection and I would do so because I 
have yet to hear of any substantial 
positive meritorious good that will 
come from the adoption of this resolu- 
tion were it to be adopted. 

I have heard, however, incontrovert- 
ible evidence, I know from my discus- 
sions with representatives of the Turk- 



ish Government in Turkey, and in our 
Government, how obnoxious this 
proposition is to them, how unstabiliz- 
ing, and what turbulence it creates in 
our relationship with a very strong, 
staunch, and vital ally. 

Balancing the mischief being done 
by the resolution against the slight 
positive good that could come from its 
adoption, I would object to the consid- 
eration again and again and again in 
this body of this resolution. 

I cannot object to its consideration, 
but I can urge my colleagues and do 
urge my colleagues to defeat this rule, 
which is the alternative to us of 
motion objecting to the consideration. 

We would do nothing by the enact- 
ment of this resolution except to legis- 
latively direct an interpretation of his- 
tory which is indeed disputed. Why 
should we spend our time and effort in 
such an exercise with all of the heavy 
constitutional requirements imposed 
upon us to discharge our responsibility 
to our constituents and to this Nation? 

I urge you to defeat this rule. 
Should it not be defeated, please 
defeat this mischievous resolution. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield such 
time as he may consume to the gentle- 
man from Michigan [Mr. Levin]. 

Mr. LEVIN of Michigan. Mr. Speak- 
er, I rise in support of the resolution 
and I hope it passes so that we can 
debate it. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 30 sec- 
onds to the chairman of the commit- 
tee, the gentleman from Michigan 
[Mr. Ford]. 

Mr. FORD of Michigan. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, it is my responsibility 
as chairman of the committee to bring 
this resolution up if the rule is adopt- 
ed. It passed our committee over- 
whelmingly. I simply would like to im- 
press upon the Members that if you 
have been listening to those speaking 
for it and those speaking against it, 
you can understand that people feel 
very strongly about it. It is not in the 
finest tradition of this House not to 
consider something because it develops 
controversy between the Members. It 
is my feeling that if this comes to a 
vote, however it turns out— and I will 
abide by whatever happens, whether it 
is passed or not passed — that we can 
get this matter behind us in this Con- 
gress and that we can get onto the 
other business which the gentleman 
mentioned. So I ask you to vote for 
the rule so that both sides who feel 
very strongly about this may muster 
their arguments, speak for and against 
it and then we will see how the vote 
comes out and everybody will have to 
abide by that. 

But please do not deny the people 
who feel so strongly about this the op- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23049 



portunity to have this issue considered 
by the House of Representatives. 

Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 132 
would designate April 24, 1988, as a "National 
Day of Remembrance of the Armenian Geno- 
cide of 1915-23." 

That is the date that people of Armenian 
ancestry commemorate the death of some 1 .5 
million victims of genocide at the hands of the 
governments of the Ottoman Empire. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize very 
strongly right at the outset that this measure 
in no way reflects upon the present Govern- 
ment of Turkey, with which our country enjoys 
excellent relations. 

The resolution specifically and emphatically 
refers only to the governments of the Otto- 
man Empire prior to the establishment of the 
Republic of Turkey. 

One would really have to stretch one's 
imagination to find anything here that legiti- 
mately would offend the present Turkish Gov- 
ernment. 

This resolution was reported by the Commit- 
tee on Post Office and Civil Service, which I 
have the honor of chairing, last April. We 
worked extremely hard to ensure that nothing 
in it could be interpreted as an accusation 
against the current Government of Turkey. 
And I am completely satisfied that we have 
succeeded. 

There have been attempts by revisionists to 
rewrite history and say that this genocide that 
wiped out 1 Vz million Armenians simply never 
happened. But to entertain this specious argu- 
ment, one would have to ignore the works of 
such eminent historians as Arnold Toynbee 
and Winston Churchill. 

Mr. Speaker, the horrible slaughter did take 
place. And as the beacon of democracy it is 
our solemn duty to do what we can to guaran- 
tee that such atrocities are not allowed to 
happen in the future. 

And I think that this resolution will help 
achieve that noble goal. 

President Roosevelt said, "The Armenian 
Massacre was the great single crime of 
(World War I)." The U.S. Ambassador to the 
Ottoman Empire in 1915 wired the Secretary 
of State: "Deportation of and excesses 
against peaceful Armenians is increasing and 
from harrowing reports of eye witnesses it ap- 
pears that a campaign of race extermination is 
in progress under a pretext of reprisal against 
rebellion." 

And on April 22, 1981, President Ronald 
Reagan, whose State Department has sought 
to block these resolutions, had this to say: 

Like the genocide of the Armenians before 
it, and the genocide of the Cambodians 
which followed it— and like too many other 
such persecutions of too many other peo- 
ples—the lessons of the Holocaust must 
never be forgotten. 

In fact 10 Presidents of the United States 
have referred to the persecution of the Arme- 
nians. I ask my colleagues to refer to page 
H6983 of Monday's Congressional Record. 
I have quoted these distinguished leaders on 
this subject. 

Based on the overwhelming evidence to the 
contrary, I am at a loss to understand how 
reasonable people could conclude that what 
happened all those many years ago was any- 
thing but a genocide. 



This resolution is very important to the thou- 
sands of Armenian Americans who have con- 
tributed and continue to contribute much to 
our Nation. 

For my part I do not want to have to tell 
them that the House, which has passed holo- 
caust-type resolutions in the past, refused to 
recognize the terrible atrocity that occurred 
from 1915 to 1923. 

Memorializing this genocide is no more anti- 
Turkey than was memorializing victims of the 
Holocaust anti-West Germany. 

The resolution before us contains language 
to guarantee that it does not refer to the 
present Government of Turkey. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Glickman). The Chair would advise 
that the gentleman from Missouri 
[Mr. Taylor] has 4.V2 minutes remain- 
ing and the gentleman from Massa- 
chusetts [Mr. Moakley] has 8% min- 
utes remaining. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Penn- 
sylvania [Mr. Murtha]. 

Mr. MURTKA. I thank the gentle- 
man for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I have never been to 
Turkey. I have been in that general 
area, but I have had a lot of Turkish 
parliamentarians come to my office. 

Now I have to say this: This issue, 
and the sponsors of this issue did ev- 
erything they could to narrow the res- 
olution so it would be more acceptable 
to the Turkish Government. But it is 
unacceptable. 

Our perception is that we have a res- 
olution which is innocuous. It is not 
innocuous to one of our most impor- 
tant allies and to one of the most diffi- 
cult areas of this world. 

What we are doing here if we defeat 
the rule is to not have an issue come 
before us. In other words, if we say, 
"no" to the rule, we are saying the 
issue should not even come before the 
House. I think that is an important 
point. 

We are not then deciding on wheth- 
er the genocide was good or bad, we 
are not making a decision on what 
happened, on which scholars disagree 
completely. We are saying that this 
issue should not come before the 
House. 

There is one other important point. 
They are having an election in Turkey 
in the near future. The United States 
Ambassador to Turkey said to us, 
"You can't do this because it will 
effect the outcome of their election." 

We have a very friendly government, 
a government that tries to be a bastion 
against the Russian border and what 
are we doing? We are going out and 
passing a resolution which they per- 
ceive to be condemning them. 

So in my estimation, we make a seri- 
ous mistake if we pass a rule at this 
point. And I know people are saying, 
"Well, I have got a lot of Armenians, I 
have very few Turks in my district." 
But let me tell you this, those Turks 
who sit out there next to the Russian 



border, they do not vote but they 
stand as a bastion of freedom and in 
support as an ally of the United 
States. And they perceive that we are 
passing a resolution that is condemn- 
ing their Government. 

I would urge Members of this House 
to vote against this rule so it does not 
come before the House, so the decision 
does not have to be faced and we are 
not faced with condemning an ally 
which is so important to the defense 
of the United States. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Michi- 
gan [Mr. Broomfield]. 

Mr. BROOMFIELD. Mr. Speaker, as 
a cosponsor of this resolution desig- 
nating April 24 of next year as a "Na- 
tional Day of Remembrance of the Ar- 
menian Genocide," I believe it is vital 
that all Americans learn about the 
genocide that was directed against the 
Armenians during the Ottoman 
Empire, 1915-23. 

The sufferings of those people are a 
powerful reminder of the injustices 
which we all deplore. Only by learning 
about the past can we hope to avoid 
equally terrible sins against mankind 
in the future. 

By supporting this resolution, we 
recognize genocide as an evil against 
human beings everywhere. 

The massacres of the Armenians in 
the early years of this century were 
well documented by both American 
and foreign sources. 

Some tell of how civilian Armenians 
were transported in boxcars to the salt 
desert. Those who did not perish from 
thirst and hunger were executed. 

Other sources tell of the wholesale 
massacres of entire Armenian towns. 
The American Ambassador to Turkey 
at that time also reported those terri- 
ble incidents. 

By any standard, that attempted 
elimination of the Armenian people 
was clearly genocide. 

Those tragic events were truly a hol- 
ocaust for the IV2 million Armenians 
who perished; that genocide was a 
classic case of man's inhumanity to 
man. 

I commend the House for taking a 
firm stand on the issue of Armenian 
genocide and join my colleagues in 
hoping that such brutality against 
fellow human beings will never 
happen again. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge passage of the 
rule. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I re- 
serve the balance of my time. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only, I yield 2 min- 
utes to the gentleman from New 
Jersey [Mr. Torricelli]. 

Mr. TORRICELLI. I thank the gen- 
tleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, there are those who 
have already announced their inten- 







23050 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



tion to misunderstand that which we 
do here today, as an affront to sover- 
eignty, as an insult to an alliance or a 
military or diplomatic question. 

Indeed what we do here today is 
none of those things. What we do is 
make a statement of justice, for the 
Armenian people will not rest, the rel- 
atives of the dead will not understand, 
until history is corrected. That is what 
we debate here today. Those who 
threaten us, those who would intimi- 
date us do not understand us. We will 
not be influenced by such statements. 

I urge the adoption of this resolu- 
tion and more. I urge that Turkey un- 
derstand that it will be a better nation 
for this statement, for certainly as our 
country had to come to terms with our 
treatment of the Indians, Germany 
with the Jews, and the Soviets or 
Cambodians one day with their own 
people, history demands an account- 
ing, for that is the only guarantee that 
it will not be repeated. 

Turkey is a great nation but it will 
be a greater nation for correcting mis- 
understandings of its own past. 
Turkey will be the better for separat- 
ing itself from the abuses of another 
time, of a different government. It will 
be the better. And just as certainly as 
America was befriended by those who 
taught us of our misdeeds in Vietnam 
or in Central America or as we try to 
instruct our friends in Britain over 
their misdeeds in Northern Ireland, 
what America does here today is an 
act of friendship. 

A Turkey that comes to terms with 
itself, to the errors in its own history 
is a Turkey that will be without ter- 
rorism, a Turkey that will be at peace 
with itself, a Turkey that will be ready 
to face the future and to finally stop 
debating the past. 

I congratulate the gentleman from 
Massachusetts and I urge adoption of 
this resolution for our sake, the sake 
of the Armenian people and indeed for 
Turkey itself. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Nebraska [Mr. Bereu- 
ter]. 

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in opposition to the rule and to House 
Joint Resolution 132. 

Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues if this res- 
olution merits consideration today. 

No matter how well intentioned are the 
sponsors of the resolution, and how real and 
massive the Armenian tragedy, this resolution 
will not change the past but will only create 
greater difficulties in the present and future. 
This resolution is, to be generous, I suppose, 
an improvement over previous versions. My 
strong opposition to this resolution arises not 
from the language but the resolution's unin- 
tended message. This Member knows full well 
that it is not the intent of the resolution's de- 
signers to alienate and rebuke the moderate 
democratic government now in power in 
Turkey. Further, it is surely not the intent of 
the sponsors to offer any encouragement to a 



small group of Armenians which espouse ter- 
rorism and violence. 

But actions such as passage of this resolu- 
tion can and certainly will be misunderstood or 
misconstrued. The key point we must consider 
in the House today is, "What are the unin- 
tended acts and messages which could be 
stimulated by passage of the resolution?" 

Emotions surrounding this resolution run 
higher — far higher, than should be the case. 
While it certainly is appropriate to designate a 
day of remembrance of man's inhumanity to 
man, I do not believe that we should single 
out one or even several ethnic groups to re- 
member and for whom to grieve, and one 
nation to accuse. The tragedy which befell the 
Armenians occurred at a moment of great his- 
torical turmoil. A major problem is that House 
Joint Resolution 132 asks the Congress to en- 
dorse, in effect, a specific historical version of 
tragic events that occurred between 1915 and 
1923 in one region of the old Ottoman 
Empire. 

Certainly, genocide of any people, nation, or 
ethnic group should be remembered. We must 
preserve the memory of such horrible deeds 
to help prevent any such reoccurrence. Unfor- 
tunately, however, contemporary terrorists 
seeking to redress history have murdered 
more than 45 Turkish diplomats since 1975 as 
part of a campaign aimed, at least part, to de- 
stabilize the modern day country of Turkey. 
Do we really want to inadvertently abet this 
process? Especially at the expense of a 
strong NATO ally and friend? This, of course, 
is not the intent of the resolution, but serious 
observers believe it would appear to support 
terrorist claims and would thus do needless 
damage to United States-Turkey relations. 

I would like to bring to my colleagues' atten- 
tion a portion of a letter to Members of Con- 
gress from Secretary of State, George Shultz, 
that underscores the importance of what we 
do here today. The letter reads in part: 

We are seriously concerned that passage 
of this bill would significantly damage our 
relations with Turkey, a NATO ally and 
friend of the United States. We have major 
national security interests in preserving and 
strengthening our relations with Turkey 
whose government and people are offended 
by this Resolution. I understand the mo- 
tives of the sponsors of this resolution; how- 
ever, I am seriously concerned not only at 
the damage the Resolution will do to our re- 
lationship with Turkey, but also that it will 
be used by Armenian terrorists * * * to jus- 
tify their past acts and future actions. I 
know that we are all determined to defeat 
international terrorism. 

I urge rejection of the rule, and if consid- 
ered, the resolution, House Joint Resolution 
132. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio [Mr. Kasich]. 

Mr. KASICH. I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. 

A lot of things that have been very 
accurate by Messrs. Moody and 
Murtha and Horton and Bosco and 
Leath, but there is one thing that we 
forget now. We have been bashing our 
allies and justifiably so for not helping 
us in the Persian Gulf or anywhere 
else in the world. 



Turkey is the poorest nation in 
NATO and they do more than West 
Germany, Holland, and Belgium to 
help themselves and to help us and to 
help the alliance. 

To bash somebody who is carrying 
their share of the burden, more than 
their share of the burden, is absolute- 
ly the wrong message to send at a 
point in time when so many of our 
allies do not want to do anything to 
help themselves or to help us. 

Let us vote "no" on this resolution. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, for 
purposes of debate only I yield 3 min- 
utes to the gentleman from California 
[Mr. Lehman]. 

Mr. LEHMAN of California. I thank 
the gentleman for yielding time to me. 

Mr. Speaker, I should hope to have 
the time to refute the historical record 
as articulated here by Mr. Moody and 
Mr. Solarz if we are given the time by 
passing this rule. 

Mr. Speaker, there are several rele- 
vant questions to which Members de- 
serve concise and direct answers 
before voting on the rule. 

I would like to address them. 

Question No. 1: Was there really a 
genocide? 

The facts are on the table and 
always have been. The word "geno- 
cide" was coined by Raphael Lemkin 
to describe what had happened to the 
Armenians. We are not taking an 
event and fitting it to the term "geno- 
cide." Rather, the term "genocide" 
was invented to describe this specific 
atrocity. How can it not apply? 

The best case for the authenticity of 
the genocide and the need to com- 
memorate it does not come from an 
Armenian organization. It comes from 
our own U.S. Holocaust Memorial 
Council which stated: 

There was unanimous approval of the fact 
that the Armenian genocide should be in- 
cluded in the Holocaust Museum Memorial. 
It was deeply felt that this was part of the 
entire process that led ultimately to the 
Holocaust * * *. 

Question No. 2: Didn't that happen a 
long time ago? Why bring it up now? 

Like the Jewish Holocaust, the survi- 
vors are still alive today. They live in 
the United States, thousands of them. 

Every day the pain of this event is 
ingrained in their being. There are 
those who survived at the bottom of 
sand pits protected by other bodies, 
and those who had to make the diffi- 
cult choices like which child to keep 
and which to leave in the desert be- 
cause they didn't have enough food or 
water or the strength to carry them. 

I fear that if we begin to forget now 
in 30 to 50 years there will be people 
in Germany who question the authen- 
ticity of the Holocaust saying their an- 
cestors could never have done a thing 
like that. Besides, there was a war 
going on wasn't there? 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23051 



I hope that our relationship with 
Germany won't preclude us from ob- 
taining a rule to discuss that issue. 

Question No. 3: Won't this damage 
our relationship with Turkey and 
harm our alliance? 

Nonsense! It has been acknowledged 
by several Presidents, including this 
one, and not harmed anything. It has 
passed the House before and not 
harmed anything. 

But more importantly, it can't harm 
anything! It says specifically that 
Turkey didn't do it. 

It says clearly and plainly that these 
events occurred in the Ottoman 
Empire before the establishment of 
the Republic of Turkey. 

It even mentions other events, in- 
cluding the Jewish Holocaust, the 
Cambodian genocide, and the destruc- 
tion of native populations in the 
Americas. 

In other words, we're not pointing 
any fingers at the Turk's ancestors 
that we are not willing to point at our 
own. 

Ata Turk, the great Turkish leader, 
the founder of modern Turkey, ac- 
knowledged the events we seek to com- 
memorate. He said in his own writing: 

The Young Turk Party should have been 
made to account for the lives of millions of 
our Christian subjects who were ruthlessly 
driven from their homes and massacred. 

Ata Turk threw these thugs out. 
Modern Turkey was founded from the 
ashes of this catastrophe. He didn't 
think acknowledging it damaged 
Turkey. Neither should we and nei- 
ther should the great Turkish Repub- 
lic. 

The final answer to this question, 
however, is a decision we must each 
make as to what kind of relationships 
we want with other countries. 

Should we let another State tell us 
which genocides to remember and 
which ones to forget? 

Should we recompose our history 
text each time we change our allies? 
Should we be more concerned about 
upsetting the Turkish Ambassador 
than about the sensitivities of 200,000 
Americans which will be shaken if we 
do not take this small, almost token 
step in their behalf? 

By rejecting this rule we say "We 
don't even want to discuss your feel- 
ings. They are not important." 

Question No. 4: Will passage of this 
resolution justify terrorism? 

I couldn't characterize in a manner 
acceptable for print in the Record 
how I feel about the merits of that 
charge. 

The fact is the opposite is true. Ex- 
tremists are freer to commit their dis- 
gusting acts when there are no institu- 
tional outlets for frustration. It is at 
least just as likely that not acknowl- 
edging the genocide will be used by 
these sick individuals to justify their 
crimes. 



In any event we all agree, I am sure, 
that we should not be influenced in 
any manner by the actions of terror- 
ists. We should reject the implication 
that an exception be made in this in- 
stance. 

Finally— 

Question No. 5: Why are we in this 
position now? Why do we need this 
commemorative resolution? 

Frankly, we shouldn't have to be 
doing this. For 60 years this Nation 
recognized what happened to the Ar- 
menian people. Turkey didn't grow 
farther from us politically, it got 
closer. This resolution passed without 
fanfare in 1975. 

Then, in 1983, our own State Depart- 
ment declared suddenly that it did not 
support the Armenian historical posi- 
tion. 

Needless to say, the Armenian com- 
munity was outraged. The State De- 
partment dug in, the Turkish Govern- 
ment, which now had an official posi- 
tion to defend, dug in, and the Arme- 
nian American community come here 
to this room. 

They didn't throw bombs or break 
windows. They didn't even demon- 
strate. They merely asked their elect- 
ed Representatives in the Congress to 
mitigate what was to them a grievous 
and shameful injustice— genocide com- 
pounded by denial. 

And so we have before us, not a 
statement condemning the Turkish 
State or the Turkish people, but a 
proclamation for a day of remem- 
brance for the dead. It doesn't even 
change the State Department's posi- 
tion. 

If we pass this resolution, it will be 
behind us and behind Turkey. If we 
don't, we know that this issue will be 
back on this floor again and again and 
again. 

Let's vote for the rule, have our 
hour of debate, and then cast our 
votes on the issue. 

Mr. BIAGGI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong 
support of House Resolution 238, the rule to 
provide for consideration of a resolution to 
designate April 24, 1988, as National Day of 
Rememberence o; the Armenian Genocide of 
1915-1923." In fact I prefer this resolution to 
those we have considered in the past be- 
cause in this one we come straight out and 
identify what we must accomplish on this 
date. First we must publicly acknowledge that 
the Armenian massacre of 1915-23 was in 
fact an act of genocide. The second is we 
must use this date to commit ourselves never 
to have such a horror repeated by any nation 
or people against any other people. 

It is astounding to me how difficult it has 
been over the years to get this resolution 
passed by the Congress. We all know the 
reason. The absolute obstinance of the Turk- 
ish Government to accept the fact that the ac- 
tions of an earlier regime in fact was geno- 
cide. Yet history is replete with the recognition 
that this event was genocide. Consider that 
the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council in a 
1981 statement said there was unanimous ap- 



proval of the fact that the Armenian genocide 
should be included in the Holocaust Museum/ 
Memorial. Most recently in June of this year, 
the European Parliament adopted a resolution 
which preconditions Turkey's acceptance into 
the European Economic Community on its 
recognition of the Armenian genocide. 

There are those who argue that passage of 
this resolution will harm our relations with the 
Government of Turkey. I am very familiar with 
this argument. This same argument was used 
to try and limit congressional support for legis- 
lation to suspend aid to Turkey when they ille- 
gally invaded Cyprus 13 years ago. The meas- 
ure passed, its important message was deliv- 
ered and relations while affected were by no 
means permanently affected. I have heard this 
same argument used by those who do not 
want us to be critical of Northern Ireland be- 
cause of its impact on relations with Great 
Britain. Yet the fact is—we have been criti- 
cal—we have been critical in a constructive 
fashion and in the past 10 years we have 
seen this criticism lead to progress. Today 
after this time the British have recognized that 
the solution there needs to be a political one 
and since they are making progress toward 
that goal, we are now investing in the future of 
Northern Ireland, with first time economic aid. 
The point is through criticism there was 
progress. 

Here the situation is far more remote in 
nature as it affects the present Turkish Gov- 
ernment. The Ottoman Empire deemed re- 
sponsible for the Armenian genocide long pre- 
ceded the existing government in Turkey. Is 
Turkey suggesting that there should continue 
to be denial in perpetuity for the genocide. 
Denying it will not make it go away. The 
memories are too strong for the Armenian 
people and their commitment to right history is 
too strong. 

I believe it is time to end this episode in 
what I might refer as "thin skinned" diploma- 
cy. It is time for this Congress, this Nation, 
and the world to set the record straight on the 
events of 1915-23 in Turkey. It is time that we 
recognized that our position as the champions 
of human rights around the world will continue 
to be a mockery if we engage in selective mo- 
rality in those issues, past and present, that 
we take stands on. 

It is argued by those in opposition to this 
resolution that Turkey has a proud history or 
cultural and religious toleration. It is a proud 
democratic friend of the United States. My re- 
sponse is they could prove this by simply ac- 
cepting the passage of this resolution today 
and stop working to defeat it. 

Finally let me add one point. If this resolu- 
tion should fail, I would hope the effort would 
not be abandoned, I would also fervently hope 
that those in Armenia who are seeking to 
have this injustice corrected will not resort to 
further violence. It will not hasten the outcome 
and in fact may hinder it. 

We realize that over the course of history, 
President Reagan and former President Carter 
had many disagreements. One issue they did 
not disagree on was the fact that the events 
of 1915-23 in Turkey constituted genocide 
against millions of Armenians. Let us in a bi- 
partisan fashion adopt this resolution today, 
make this important recognition in history and 



91-059 0-89-2 (Pt. 17) 






23052 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



pledge as we have done with respect to the 
Holocaust "never again." 

Mr. STRATTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup- 
port of the rule on House Joint Resolution 
132, the National Day of Remembrance of Ar- 
menian Genocide. 

What we are commemorating here is one 
more example of man's inhumanity to man; 
and as such, it is in my judgment as appropri- 
ate for those of us— the living— to remind our- 
selves that such tragedies shall never again 
take place on the face of this Earth— the mon- 
strous tragedy of the Holocaust, the ruthless 
slaughter of the Cambodian people, and the 
deliberate starvation of the people of the 
Ukraine under the reign of Josef Stalin. 

Such events are not, of course, pleasant to 
contemplate. But if we are to prevent these 
events, we need to recognize them; and, by 
remembering, wc make it easier for us to 
insure that we will make certain that such 
deeds shall never again take place. 

I can remember as a grade school pupil in 
Schenectady in the early 1920's being taken 
with our classmates to a movie in a downtown 
theater which photographed some of the suf- 
fering of the Armenian people at the hands of 
the Ottoman Empire. This was what was re- 
ferred to as Near East Relief; and even as a 
child, I remember our modest efforts as 
schoolchildren to contribute as we have done 
for UNICEF and other worthy causes. 

There is no doubt that the iniquities that 
were forced upon the Armenian people de- 
serve to be remembered— as this resolution 
was designed to do. Nothing can assuage the 
hearts of those who lost family and friends in 
that tragedy, as we remember those who lived 
through this period of terror, of killing. 

For many people this story is not known. 
For many, it is not even believed to be factual. 
But it did happen, and as I have said as I saw 
in those early film documentaries from the 
Near East Relief Organization. 

There is a rumor that Members -who do not 
understand the impact of this resolution will 
try to vote against the rule, which means once 
again that the House will not be able to 
debate and consider this resolution as it 
should properly be done. 

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to have in my 
congressional district in the capital area of the 
Empire State — in Troy, Albany, Watervliet— a 
very large number of people of Armenian de- 
scent. They are leaders in the community. 
They are hard-working people in the Waterv- 
liet Arsensal, one of the major military installa- 
tions in our Nation. They are church-going 
people. Their contributions to the community 
are many and great over the years. 

One of the things that they have brought to 
my attention is their deep desire that the 
American people will make it possible for the 
generations of Armenians who have come 
after the tragedies of the Near East genocide 
to be able to honor those who lost their lives 
in an earlier time. For these Armenians are 
firmly proud of their heritage — as all Ameri- 
cans are. And they certainly deserve to be. 

As a matter of fact, one of the most notable 
leaders of the Armenian people, the Governor 
of California— Governor Deukmejian, was born 
and lived and was educated in my congres- 
sional district. I know that the Governor will be 
joining with his friends and relatives in hoping 



that this 1987 resolution will be overwhelming 
passed and not just brushed aside. 

Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support 
of House Joint Resolution 132, a bill to desig- 
nate April 24, 1988, as "National Day of Re- 
membrance of the Armenian Genocide of 
1915-1923." The intention of this legislation is 
to commemorate the loss of nearly 1.5 million 
Armenian victims of genocide perpetrated by 
the governments of the Ottoman Empire over 
an 8-year period. 

Armenian Americans observe the devastat- 
ing loss of their ancestors on April 24. As a 
nation, we should share in their sorrow by 
publicly acknowledging the circumstances 
under which it occurred. 

Genocide is a tragic blot on the record of 
human history. If we, as a people, are deter- 
mined to ensure that new incidents of geno- 
cide are not allowed to occur, it is vital that 
we remember the victims of the past. There 
is, unfortunately, a movement of historical re- 
visionism which is attempting to deny this par- 
ticular act of genocide. House Joint Resolu- 
tion 132 would prevent this occurrence, by 
protecting the validity of official State Depart- 
ment records, which chronicled the genocide. 

This bill is not intended to offend the 
present Government of the Republic of 
Turkey, which is an important NATO ally. De- 
spite the importance of Turkey as an ally, we 
cannot allow history to be rewritten just as an 
act of mollification. The principles of liberty 
and respect for human rights, upon which this 
country is based, are too important to be vio- 
lated for political purposes. The facts are 
clear. One and a half million Armenians were 
killed through a systematic program of perse- 
cution and genocide by the Ottoman Empire. 
Their ancestors deserve public recognition 
and our sympathy. I strongly urge my col- 
leagues to vote yes on this resolution. 

Mr. MORRISON of Connecticut. Mr. Speak- 
er, I rise today in support of House Joint Res- 
olution 132, which designates April 24, 1988, 
as a National Day of Remembrance of the Ar- 
menian Genocide. I am shocked that the 
House has refused to even take up this impor- 
tant legislation. 

This past April I took part in ceremonies in 
Hartford, CT, commemorating the Armenian 
genocide. These ceremonies, sponsored by 
the Connecticut branch of the Armenian Na- 
tional Committee, served as a vivid and touch- 
ing reminder of one of the most tragic epi- 
sodes in the history of mankind. 

On April 24, 1915, over 200 Armenian reli- 
gious, political and intellectual leaders were 
arrested in Constantinople and in Armenian 
centers throughout the Ottoman Empire by its 
rulers. These pillars of the Armenian commu- 
nity were then either deported or murdered, 
leaving the Armenian people leaderless. 

In May 1915, the deportation of all Armeni- 
ans was ordered. The resulting death march, 
consisting mostly of women, children, and the 
elderly, wound its way across Asia Minor and 
Turkish Armenia into the Syrian desert. Count- 
less gruesome atrocities were inflicted upon 
the defenseless Armenians, including rapes 
and torture. The road was strewn with Armeni- 
an bodies. Able bodied Armenian men serving 
in the Ottoman Empire's armed forces were 
segregated into labor battalions, disarmed and 
either killed outright or worked to death. 



Henry Morgenthau, the U.S. Ambassador to 
Turkey during 1913-16, had no question that 
the treatment of the Armenians was part of a 
calculated plan to exterminate them. In 1918 
he wrote: 

When the authorities gave the orders for 
these deportations, they were merely giving 
the death warrant to a whole race. They un- 
derstood this well, and, in their conversa- 
tions with me, they made no particular at- 
tempt to conceal the fact. 

Morgenthau, who tried desperately to stop 
the horrible slaughter, asserted that these 
events "surpass the most beastly and diaboli- 
cal cruelties ever before perpetrated or imag- 
ined in the history of the world." 

During the years between 1915 and 1923, 
1.5 million Armenians were systematically 
massacred, and another 500,000 deported by 
the Ottoman Empire. Successive Turkish gov- 
ernments, in an attempt to rewrite history, 
have tried to cover up these events by deny- 
ing their very occurrence. Where this has 
failed, they have warned of damage to Turk- 
ish-American relations should the United 
States persist in reminding the world of this 
terrible tragedy. 

House Joint Resolution 132 is not an indict- 
ment of the Turkish people or their leaders, 
past or present. It serves as a reminder of 
one of the saddest chapters in man's history, 
as an example of man's capacity for evil. We 
must learn from such examples if we are to 
avoid repeating them. And to learn we must 
not forget. 

Mr. Speaker, I have cosponsored this reso- 
lution each year since first coming to Con- 
gress, because I believe that we have a re- 
sponsibility to remember such events as ex- 
amples of the cruelty that humans are capa- 
ble of inflicting on each other. I urge those of 
my colleagues who have opposed consider- 
ation of this legislation to reconsider so that 
the House may have the opportunity to vote 
on it. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Speaker, I think it is critical 
that the House pass the rule allowing for con- 
sideration of House Resolution 132. Passage 
of this resolution, designating April 24, 1988, 
as a national day of remembrance for the Ar- 
menian genocide of 1915-23, is long overdue. 

In December 1985 this House bowed to the 
pressure of the Turkish Government and de- 
feated a friendly amendment to a similar reso- 
lution, 213 to 206. It was not one of the 
prouder moments of the House and our inabil- 
ity to right this wrong today would only add to 
our shame. 

Let me tell you first what this resolution, 
which the Government of Turkey has set as a 
litmus test of our support, does not do. First, it 
does not seek to attack and deride our ally 
Turkey. I stand second to none in this House 
in recognizing the valuable role Turkey plays 
in the NATO alliance. This resolution does not 
accuse Turkey; in fact, it explicitly states that 
this was a genocide which occurred under the 
Ottoman Empire, prior to the establishment of 
the Republic of Turkey. 

Second, it does not devalue the term 
"genocide." I have the privilege of being a 
member of the U.S. Holocaust Memorial 
Council, which has decided to include the de- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23053 



tails of the Armenian genocide in its planned 
Holocaust Memorial. 

What this resolution does do is give some 
comfort to those Armenians whose loved 
ones were among the 1.5 million Armenians 
massacred as they watched and who still 
write me today begging that we not murder 
them a second time by revising history. 

Perhaps the single most important point 
that can be made in favor of this resolution is 
Hitler's own words in a 1931 interview as he 
described his plan for the "final solution": 

. . . And remember the extermination of 
the Armenians. One eventually reaches the 
conclusion that masses of men are mere bio- 
logical plasticine. 

And if we defeat this rule and this resolution 
again today, we might add to that "whose fate 
can be rewritten for political expediency." 

Mr. BOSCO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in op- 
position to House Joint Resolution 132, desig- 
nating April 24, 1988, as "National Day of Re- 
membrance of the Armenian Genocide 1915- 
1923." This resolution is clearly a well-inten- 
tioned piece of legislation, Mr. Speaker, but it 
would drop a bombshell of bad will upon the 
country of Turkey, this Nation's critical ally on 
NATO's southern flank, and cause severe and 
needless damage to American interests in 
southern Europe. 

At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
make it clear that I do not wish to dispute the 
claims of immense suffering presented by the 
Armenian people. I deplore the crimes they 
have described, and I believe that it is our 
duty as elected officials to be especially sensi- 
tive to the needs of those Armenians who 
came to this land seeking refuge from foreign 
calamities and wars. 

However, I do not believe that it is appropri- 
ate for this body to debate what does and 
what does not constitute the horrible crime of 
genocide, and I refuse to engage in such a 
debate. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Congress is a 
political body, not an historical academy. The 
U.S. Congress can and must be trusted to 
enact laws that conform to the will of the 
people of the land, and it can be trusted to re- 
spond to political pressure, but it cannot be 
trusted to discriminate accurately between 
subtle and confusing renditions of faraway his- 
torical events. 

But, Mr. Speaker, even more important than 
the historical debate in this instance are the 
national security ramifications of this resolu- 
tion. Many of my colleagues believe that 
House Joint Resolution 132 carries with it no 
unfortunate consequences; let me explain why 
it unfortunately does. 

Mr. Speaker, Turkey is a nation truly on the 
front lines, yet its security relationships with 
the United States and NATO are currently on 
the rocks. I submit that the United States and 
NATO could not invent a more strategically 
situated ally — Turkey controls the Soviet 
fleet's access to the Mediterranean — nor 
could we ever question Turkey's commitment 
to our common defense — she contributes the 
second largest number of troops to NATO of 
any nation in the alliance. 

Moreover, Turkey's less visible contributions 
to alliance security are even more consequen- 
tial. In particular, she offers the United States 
crucial intelligence-gathering positions from 
which we can observe Soviet strategic force 



developments and verify Soviet compliance 
with arms control agreements. 

Frankly, Mr. Speaker, you would think that a 
country that borders the Soviet Union, Iran, 
Iraq, Syria, and Bulgaria would be seen for 
what it is— vital and absolutely irreplaceable— 
and that we in Congress would exercise the 
little influence that is ours to clear away the 
stumbling blocks between the United States 
and Turkey, and to ease Turkish fears of the 
Soviet military and of rising Islamic fundamen- 
talism. 

And yet this resolution, however insignifi- 
cant and benign it might appear to us, when 
taken in the context of other Western policies 
by Turkey's leaders, jeopardizes all of these 
benefits, and consequently jeopardizes the se- 
curity of the United States. Turkey is an Islam- 
ic nation within which there exists a delicate 
domestic political balance, and although 
Turkey is constitutionally secular, Islamic fun- 
damentalism poses a constant threat. We 
should encourage, rather embarrass and un- 
dermine, those Turks who place great empha- 
sis and value on continued and expanded co- 
operation with the West. 

Many of my colleagues believe that House 
Joint Resolution 132 comes on the heels of 
an identical and similarly well-intentioned reso- 
lution passed in June by the European Parlia- 
ment. Mr. Speaker, the sponsors of House 
Joint Resolution 132 in fact point to the Euro- 
pean Parliament's action as one that should 
be respected and emulated by this body. They 
are in grave error. 

Mr. Speaker, the resolution in question in 
effect holds the present Government of 
Turkey directly responsible for crimes perpe- 
trated during the Ottoman Empire, classifies 
these crimes unequivocally as "genocide," 
and recommends that Turkey be denied entry 
into the Common Market until it accepts these 
deeds as its own. And what is particularly 
egregious about this decision? 

Mr. Speaker, of the 518 members of the Eu- 
ropean Parliament, about 145 voted for final 
passage of this resolution. In other words, all 
of 28 percent of the European Parliament 
stood behind what the sponsors of House 
Joint Resolution 132 term "a historic resolu- 
tion" for which "the members of the European 
Parliament are to be commended." 

Even more damning is exactly who these 
parliamentarians were. The group supporting 
the resolution included primarily Communists, 
leftwing members of European Socialist par- 
ties, Greeks, and the entire Greek delegation. 
In other words, all of the members of the Eu- 
ropean Parliament with a clear and estab- 
lished interest in damaging Turkey's economic 
well-being and diplomatic status, and all of the 
members interested in undermining the unity 
and effectiveness of NATO and the Common 
Market, stood together in supporting this reso- 
lution. It is hard to imagine why this distin- 
guished body should emulate such a vote. 

Mr. Speaker, three center-right political 
groups, comprising roughly one-half of the Eu- 
ropean Parliament, refused to participate in 
this vote on the grounds that it was not appro- 
priate for the European Parliament to make 
historical judgments. Further, the British and 
West German governments, recognizing the 
severe antialliance sentiment that this resolu- 



tion expressed, immediately disassociated 
themselves from the vote. 

Mr. Speaker, I am appalled by the possibility 
that my colleagues may unwittingly aid fringe 
groups who are consistently and stridently op- 
posed to the NATO alliance. If we pass House 
Joint Resolution 132 on the heels of a disas- 
trously onesided and vindictive resolution in 
Europe, and if we proclaim this resolution as 
our inspiration today, then it is small wonder 
that our relations with Turkey will suffer. 

Mr. Speaker, I call upon my colleagues to 
join me today in opposition to House Joint 
Resolution 132, not out of disrespect for the 
worthy claims presented by Armenian Ameri- 
cans, but out of respect for the reasoned and 
responsible conduct of America's foreign rela- 
tions. 

Mrs. ROUKEMA. It is with genuine respect 
for the memory of those Armenians who have 
suffered persecution that I rise today in sup- 
port of this resolution. Over 70 years ago, 
American did everything they could to stop 
and alleviate the suffering of Armenians. 
Surely today the least we can do is remember 
that tragedy, and pledge that it will never 
happen again. 

I support this legislation of a sincere sympa- 
thy for the Armenian victims of genocide and 
because of my sincere belief that the best 
way to prevent future genocide is by con- 
demning past genocide. There should be no 
question where the United States stands on 
this critical human rights issue. 

No one should doubt the nature or extent of 
the suffering that was inflicted on the Armeni- 
an people during the last years of the Otto- 
man Empire. The memoirs of Herbert Hoover 
vividly recall the atrocities, as well as Ameri- 
can efforts to assist the Armenian people. The 
archives of the U.S. Department of State also 
record the anguish of our own diplomats as 
they attempted to deal with the tragedy. 

House Joint Resolution 132 will simply com- 
memorate a tragedy that we have acknowl- 
edged for decades. It does not seek to blame 
current governments nor create strain with our 
allies. It only asks that we remember past suf- 
fering, so that we can work to prevent future 
suffering. Certainly we should not attempt to 
rewrite history, omitting the inconvenient parts. 

For these reasons, I urge my colleagues to 
support this resolution. 

Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, in August 
1939, before World War II, before the Holo- 
caust, Adolf Hitler asked his generals: "Who 
still talks nowadays of the extermination of the 
Armenians?" 

We are here today, on the floor of the U.S. 
Congress, to talk about that very same exter- 
mination of the Armenians. 

We are here in part, I think, because Hitler 
taught us the price of forgetting. As Santaya- 
na so eloquently put it, "Those who cannot 
remember the past are condemned to repeat 
it." 

But the danger of repetition is not the only 
price of forgetting; another victim of the ab- 
sence of memory is truth. There are those 
who today would like us to believe that the Ar- 
menian genocide never happened. 

It is interesting to note that there were no 
such doubts at the time. 






Hi 



23054 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Henry Morgenthau, U.S. Ambassador to the 
Ottoman Empire at the time of the genocide, 
wrote in 1918 that: 

The Turkish authorities gave . . . the 
death warrant to a whole race; they under- 
stood this well, and, in their conversations 
with me, they made no particular attempt 
to conceal the fact. 

Ambassador Wangenheim of Germany, the 
Ottoman's close ally, writing in 1915, noted 
that, "the government is indeed pursuing its 
goal of exterminating the Armenian race in the 
Ottoman Empire." 

The founder of modern Turkey, Kemal Ata- 
turk, declared that the regime which preceded 
his "should have been made to account for 
the lives of millions of our Christian subjects 
who were ruthlessly driven en masse from 
their homes and massacred." 

It is difficult to comprehend how the present 
rulers of Turkey, who see Ataturk as their 
forefather, could deny the genocide which he 
so rightly condemned. 

Let us not join them in their amnesia. Veiled 
and not-so-veiled threats have been made re- 
garding Turkey's relations with the United 
States if this resolution should pass. 

But this resolution is neither about dismem- 
bering the Turkish state nor about supporting 
Armenian terrorists. This resolution is about 
truth and memory. 

It is not too late to heed Santayana and to 
answer Hitler by showing that we do remem- 
ber the Armenian genocide. Let us today vote 
to designate April 24, 1988, as "National Day 
of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide." 

Mr. COELHO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
take this opportunity to share with you my 
support for House Joint Resolution 132, which 
would designate April 24, 1988, as "National 
Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Geno- 
cide of 1915-23. 

Once again, Congress is about to consider 
this legislation which would honor the victims 
as well as the survivors of this tragedy which 
took place earlier this century. I feel it is most 
important that this legislation be passed by 
this body, not only for people of Armenian de- 
scent but for all Americans. What took place 
under the Ottoman Empire was indeed a trag- 
edy, but we do not attempt to commemorate 
this day today in an effort to denigrate the 
present day government of Turkey. Rather, we 
honor this day to remind us of the injustices 
which can take place in modern society and 
to confirm for history that which the facts 
have already confirmed— that there was a 
genocide. We should not be swayed by the 
officials of the Reagan administration nor by 
the Turkish officials into believing that there 
was no effort to eliminate the Armenian 
people. Clearly there was. 

Perhaps I feel it is saddest that they are 
willing to deny the history in hopes that it will 
be forgotten. Well, it won't. The suffering 
which the Armenian people have had to with- 
stand has been too much, and for those who 
seek to continue to deny it do further injustice. 
The Armenian people are people of pride and 
dignity. Let us restore their pride and dignity 
by voting in support of this resolution today. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Speaker, today the House 
of Representatives will consider the rule on 
House Joint Resolution 1 32, to designate April 
24, 1988, as "National Day of Remembrance 



of the Armenian Genocide of 1915-23." I will 
oppose this rule for three reasons. 

First there is a question about the factual 
accuracy of the resolution. A majority of the 
leading United States academic specialists on 
Turkey, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle 
East have challenged the accuracy of resolu- 
tion's version of events during the period of 
time in question. Although it is a fact that a 
great many Armenians were killed in cruel and 
barbarous ways, it is also a fact that a great 
many Muslims were killed in terrible ways. It 
was a cruel and tragic civil war with a great 
deal of suffering on both sides. But it is not 
the role of the U.S. Congress to determine 
which historical view of those events is cor- 
rect. 

Second, Armenian terrorists have murdered 
more than 50 Turkish diplomats and two 
American citizens as part of an effort to desta- 
bilize modern Turkey. They are seeking an in- 
dependent Armenia, just as Armenians in 
1915 were, and they use the "Armenian geno- 
cide" to justify their actions. To recognize an 
"Armenian genocide" despite historical dis- 
crepancies would be taken as a sign that we 
condone these terrorists' goals and actions. 
The pain and suffering of Armenians and Mus- 
lims from 1915 to 1923 should not be exploit- 
ed in this way. 

Third, this resolution would have serious 
consequences for our relations with Turkey, 
one of our staunchest allies and a strategical- 
ly vital member of NATO. These conse- 
quences might be acceptable if we were ab- 
solutely sure about the historical accuracy of 
the resolution, but the consequences are too 
great to risk on an uncertain and disputed set 
of facts. This is in no way meant to deny or 
minimize the very great pain and loss suffered 
by both Armenians and Muslims from 1915 to 
1923. 

For all of the above reasons, I must oppose 
the rule on House Joint Resolution 132. I urge 
my colleagues to consider these points when 
deciding how to vote on this measure. 

Mr. McEWEN. Mr. Speaker, the House will 
today consider, again, a resolution which 
seeks to designate April 24, 1988 as a "Na- 
tional Day of Remembrance of the Armenian 
Genocide of 1915-23." In the 99th Congress, 
this ill advised resolution was to recognize 
"Man's Inhumanity to Man." 

The horrifying and outrageous death tolls 
during the 8 years of the Ottoman Empire 
must not be forgotten nor can they be forgiv- 
en. The detainment, torture and murder of 
these Armenian leaders by the empire will live 
in our hearts and minds for eternity. 

The United States has not and will not be 
silent in our remembrance of these victims of 
the Armenian tragedy: 

The U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council will 
include this time in Turkish history in its 
museum and educational programs. 

President Reagan in an April 1981 procla- 
mation recognized, on behalf of all Americans, 
that these Armenian cruelties should never be 
forgotten. 

Today, however, the arguments in favor of 
this resolution remain erroneous and danger- 
ous. After 4 hours of debate, this resolution 
was defeated in the 99th Congress. 

A year later, the arguments in favor of de- 
feating this resolution are even stronger: 



As the Secretary of State, George Shultz, 
so eloquently detailed in his August 4, letter: 

This Resolution . . . will have a severely 
negative impact on our country's relations 
with a major ally and friend, modern-day 
Turkey. If passed, the Resolution would se- 
riously damage the NATO Alliance. 

The Ambassador of the Turkish Republic 
further states: 

Clearly this resolution should not be seen 
merely as a symbolic gesture of empathy 
toward one group of American's forebears 
regarding a long ago tragedy in a faraway 
land. Today, in 1987. human lives and cru- 
cial alliance relations are at stake. Passage 
of this resolution will constitute and unde- 
served blow to a steadfast NATO ally and 
will severely damage the crucial interests 
our two countries share. 

I share in the grief my colleagues express 
for the horrific course of this time in Armenian 
history, 1915-23. No vote by this body will 
ever erase this tragic event from history, nor 
from the Armenian people's, or our, minds. 
This is assured. I urge my colleagues, in no 
uncertain terms, to oppose House Joint Reso- 
lution 132. 

Mr. MORRISON of Washington. Mr. Speak- 
er, I am opposed to House Joint Resolution 
132, the Day of Remembrance of Armenian 
Genocide because I believe it harms our rela- 
tions with and offends the present Turkish 
Government without serving any worthwhile 
purpose. Turkey is a major NATO ally, and is 
the site of the largest American airbase be- 
tween Italy and the Philippines. All large, 
tragic losses of life do not meet the definition 
of genocide — "an attempt to eliminate a na- 
tional, ethnic, racial, or religious group." Geno- 
cide is the highest crime against humanity of 
which a nation may be accused, and the 
charge of genocide must only be made based 
on the clearest historical record. In this case 
the record is not clear. Although there is no 
question that hundreds of thousands of Arme- 
nians died during the collapse of the Ottoman 
Empire between 1915 and 1923 (at a time 
when hundreds of thousands of Moslems also 
died), whether the circumstances of these 
deaths meet the specific definition of geno- 
cide remains a matter of controversy. 

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, yet again I 
speak in opposition to the rule on House Joint 
Resolution 132, which would designate a "Na- 
tional Day of Remembrance of the Armenian 
Genocide of 1915-1932." 

Many commentators have argued that, 
whatever the consequences for our relations 
with the Republic of Turkey, or for our policy 
of fighting terrorism, we should pass this reso- 
lution on purely moral grounds. I am sympa- 
thetic to this argument. How could we morally 
defend ignoring or covering up a crime as hei- 
nous as that of genocide? But how, also, is it 
moral to levy such a grave charge when the 
historical assumptions on which it rests are so 
clearly open to historical dispute? 

Note the fact that over 60 of our country's 
most distinguished scholars of Turkish, Otto- 
man and Middle Eastern studies have consist- 
ently argued that the nature of the events 
which occurred in Eastern Anatolia during the 
period cited by this resolution is still a matter 
of historical debate. 




August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23055 



Armenians argue passionately that the trag- 
edy which befell their people in Turkey was 
the result of a deliberate Ottoman government 
policy to destory their race. This is the view 
adopted by the resolution. Turks argue just as 
passionately that hundreds of thousands of 
Muslims met the same fate in that time and 
place, and that these horrors were the result 
of war and the disease and famine which ac- 
companied it. They deny vehemently that 
there was a deliberate policy to exterminate 
the Armenian people. Let us not forget that 
the tens of thousands of Armenians living in 
Istanbul— the Ottoman capital— were largely 
left alone and continue to live there presently. 

The historians point out that congressional 
endorsement of a resolution based on the 
views held by only one side of this debate will 
limit historical inquiry and damage the credibil- 
ity of the legislative process. Be that as it 
may, lending the authority of this body to a 
statement on which a large number of schol- 
ars is unable to agree will debase the value of 
this House and unnecessarily harm our rela- 
tions with Turkey, which has proven to be a 
good friend and an important ally. 

I urge my colleagues to leave resolution of 
this historical point dispute to scholars 
equipped to do so, and to oppose passage of 
this resolution. 

Mr. LAGOMARSINO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in 
opposition to House Joint Resolution 132 and 
to the rule because it is not the simple come- 
morative resolution some have billed it to be. 
Rather, it is a very controversial bill that could 
create serious problems with the national se- 
curity of NATO and in our relations with our 
close and trusted friend, the nation of Turkey. 

History does not support the accusation 
that in 1915 the Ottoman Empire, to which 
modern Turkey traces its roots, systematically 
tried to exterminate all Armenians. Sixty-nine 
of our Nation's top scholars specializing in the 
Ottoman Empire and Near East history from 
recognized institutions like University of Cali- 
fornia-Berkely, Princeton, Columbia. UCLA, 
University of Pennsylvania, John Hopkins, and 
others publicly oppose this resolution. 

House Joint Resolution 1 32 asserts that the 
Armenians were victims of genocide. Howev- 
er, many experts question whether genocide 
is the proper term for what transpired in the 
years after 1915. Genocide, an intentional, 
systematic policy to eliminate a people, is one 
of the worst crimes against humanity. I share 
the anguish of the Armenian people and rec- 
ognize that countless numbers were killed in 
cruel and brutal ways. However, I also recog- 
nize that the period of time covered in this 
resolution includes World War I and the col- 
lapse of the Ottoman Empire. The area where 
many of the Armenians lived was the scene of 
bloody fighting between the Russians and the 
Ottomans. Countless numbers of Moslems 
and other ethnics were brutally killed along 
with the Armenians. I have reservations about 
using the term "genocide" because I under- 
stand that hundreds of thousands of Armeni- 
ans in western Turkey and other parts of the 
Ottoman Empire — far from the eastern front — 
were not affected. Compare this to the real 
genocide of the Jewish people by the Nazis. 
Jews from all Nazi-occupied territories were 
hunted and persecuted. Turkey, indicentally, 
was a safe haven for many thousands of Eu- 



ropean Jews fleeing the Holocaust. While this 
resolution names the Ottoman Empire, it is 
clearly aimed at Turkey and the Turks. Yet, 
many of the soldiers and armed militia in the 
Ottoman armies, those accused or murdering 
the innocent Armenians, were not Turks. They 
were from other parts of the empire. 

I am also concerned that members are ig- 
noring the injustices committed against the Ar- 
menian people by the Russians and the Sovi- 
ets. Half of the region of Armenia was seized 
by the Soviets and through today they suffer 
under communism as a second-class non- 
Russian citizens. Clearly, many Armenians 
perished at the brutal hands of the Russians 
and Soviets during the period covered in this 
resolution. Many tens of thousands of others 
were killed during Stalin's regime. 

Targeting the Turks could have serious con- 
sequences for our relations with Turkey and 
could endanger some of our most vital securi- 
ty interests in the Mediterranean. Turkey is the 
strategic cornerstone of NATO's southern 
flank. Its control of the chokepoints of the 
Bosphorus and the Dardanelles contains the 
Soviets in the Black Sea and controls their 
access to the Mediterranean. The Turkish 
Army is the second largest in the alliance- 
only ours is larger. The Turks make a signifi- 
cant contribution to the conventional balance 
of power in Europe. 

Turkey is a strong, democratic friend of the 
United States. Its 1,000-mile border with the 
Soviet Union is one of the longest in NATO. It 
has the largest U.S. Air Force base between 
Europe and the Philippines, is the home to 
many vital listening posts and pays a propor- 
tionally large share of NATO's defense costs. 
I know that the Turkish people and the Gov- 
ernment in Ankara will take great offense at 
this resolution. This resolution, if adopted, 
coupled with the provision critical of Turkey in 
other committee bills and the reduction of our 
aid to this base-rights country could be a very 
serious blow to Turkish-American friendship 
and cooperation. 

I know some of my colleagues will cite the 
European Parliament vote in support of House 
Joint Resolution 132. It is important to note 
that less than 25 percent of the delegates 
were present and of them, 80 percent were 
Communist and Socialist. Great Britain and 
Germany have officially disassociated them- 
selves with this voice-vote resolution. Follow- 
ing this vote, Turkish President Evren publicly 
indicated that a similar resolution adopted by 
the United States could result in Turkey leav- 
ing NATO. The mere suggestion of such a 
drastic action by a loyal NATO member sig- 
nals the seriousness of this matter. 

I am also very concerned that the passage 
of House Joint Resolution 132 could give Ar- 
menian extremist groups incentive to increase 
their indiscriminate terrorist activities. Already, 
these terrorists are responsible for the deaths 
of more than 70 Turkish diplomats and other 
innocent bystanders including 4 Americans. I 
know of these bloody attacks well — the Turk- 
ish Consul in Los Angeles was gunned down 
in my district at the Baltimore Hotel in Santa 
Barbara, CA. With all of our concern about 
terrorism, I do not think it wise for Congress to 
pass a measure that could promote terrorist 
attacks. 



The Armenians were subject to mass kill- 
ings and suffered greatly. The unwarranted, 
barbarous attacks on innocent Armenian vil- 
lages must be condemned. However, if we are 
going to adopt a resolution which would jeop- 
ardize our relations with an important ally and 
put at risk vital American national security in- 
terests, we need to be absolutely convinced 
of the textual accuracy of this resolution. I am 
not. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this resolution. 

Mr. BOLAND, Mr. Speaker, I would like to 
associate myself as one who supports House 
Joint Resolution 132, which would designate 
April 22, 1988, as "National Day of Remem- 
brance of the Armenian Genocide of 1915- 
1923." 

That it has taken this body over 70 years to 
make a full recognition of the acts perpetrated 
by the Ottoman Turks against the Armenians 
is reason enough for this action. Clearly there 
is no excuse for not addressing this historical 
tragedy. We must follow the lead of our allies. 
The European Parliament has made a formal 
recognition of Armenian genocide, and has, in 
fact, pressured the present Government of 
Turkey to recognize the atrocities of the Otto- 
mans as a prerequisite to admittance to the 
European Economic Community. 

The United States' recognition of Armenian 
genocide through a designated day would be 
a little more than a token to the descendants 
of the victims. It would be an important token, 
however. The significance of the greatest de- 
mocracy finally coming to grips with an event 
which brought death to 1 V2 million Armenians 
and permanent displacement from their home- 
land to over 500,000 more cannot be overesti- 
mated. Moreover, to deny even this minute, 
belated observance of Armenian genocide 
would be to turn a deaf ear to a persecuted 
people and to turn our backs to the grievous 
lessons borne of that persecution. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues not to let 
this opportunity escape the Congress. This 
action is exclusively symbolic in nature. But to 
deny the facts surrounding Armenian geno- 
cide by not allowing for this day of observ- 
ance would not only prolong the suffering of 
its victims and the descendants of those vic- 
tims, but would also abet the future of geno- 
cide by failing to raise public consciousness to 
its reality. I commend the intent of this legisla- 
tion and urge its immediate passage. 

Miss SCHNEIDER. Mr. Speaker, today the 
House takes note of a period when acts of 
unbelievable violence were carried out against 
the Armenian people. We do this because it is 
fitting that each generation should be remind- 
ed of the potential for violence that exists in 
the world. The massacre of hundreds of thou- 
sands of Armenians occurred in a time of war 
and turmoil. The tragedy that befell the Arme- 
nian people must take its place along side the 
tragedies that befell the victims of Stalin, 
Hitler, and Pol Pot. It is correct for Congress 
to take time to remember those who died. 

The debate over the exact motivation, the 
circumstances, and the political decisions that 
occurred over 75 years ago in present-day 
Turkey will continue. Congress cannot affix 
blame on the prepetrators who actively carried 
out atrocities against the Armenians. Con- 









an 



23056 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



gress cannot extract concessions nor demand 
reparations from those who allowed or en- 
couraged wide-scale death and displacement. 
Congress cannot sort out the incidental vic- 
tims of a period of tumult from who were vic- 
tims of a deliberate violence directed at the 
Armenian minority. What Congress can do is 
to take note of the circumstances under which 
the oppression of a minority people leads to 
rampant killing and displacement and to work 
to ensure that such circumstances are never 
repeated. 

Mr. Speaker, the Armenian community in my 
own State of Rhode Island is an example of 
the strength and resiliency of this pround 
people. In remembering their sorrows, we 
should not overlook their triumphs. While we 
commemorate today the suffering and tragedy 
that befell their friends and relatives over 75 
years ago, we can also celebrate their contri- 
butions to industry, education, culture, and 
government. I join my colleagues in remem- 
bering the victims of this massacre and dis- 
persion, and I salute the survivors and their 
accomplishments. 

Mr. INHOFE. Mr. Speaker, today the House 
will consider House Joint Resolution 132, to 
designate April 24, 1988, as "National Day of 
Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide of 
1915-1923." I will oppose this resolution for 
three reasons. 

First, there is a question about the factual 
accuracy of the resolution. A majority of the 
leading United States academic specialists on 
Turkey, the Ottoman Empire and the Middle 
East have challenged the accuracy of the res- 
olution's version of events during the period of 
time in question. Although it is a fact that a 
great many Armenians were killed in cruel and 
barbarous ways, it is also a fact that a great 
many Muslims were killed in terrible ways. It 
was a cruel and tragic civil war with a great 
deal of suffering on both sides. But it is not 
the role of the U.S. Congress to determine 
which historical view of those events is cor- 
rect. 

Second, Armenian terrorists have murdered 
more than 50 Turkish diplomats and 2 Ameri- 
can citizens as part of an effort to destabilize 
modern Turkey. They are seeking an inde- 
pendent Armenia, just as Armenians in 1915 
were, and they use the "Armenian genocide" 
to justify their actions. To recognize an Arme- 
nian genocide despite historical discrepancies 
would be taken as a sign that we condone 
these terrorists' goals and actions. The pain 
and suffering of Armenians and Muslims from 
1915 to 1923 should not be exploited in this 
way. 

Third, this resolution would have serious 
consequences for our relations with Turkey, 
one of our staunchest allies and a strategical- 
ly vital member of NATO. These conse- 
quences might be acceptable if we were ab- 
solutely sure about the historical accuracy of 
the resolution, but the consequences are too 
great to risk on an uncertain and disputed set 
of facts. This is in no way meant to deny or 
minimize the very great pain and loss suffered 
by both Armenians and Muslims from 1915 to 
1923. 

For all of the above reasons, I must oppose 
House Joint Resolution 132. I urge my col- 
leagues to consider these points in deciding 
how to vote on this measure. 



Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, some critics 
claim that we are wasting our time today, dis- 
cussing events which took place in the Middle 
East in the early 1900's. These critics claim 
that there is nothing to be gained by rehash- 
ing this subject, and that we have far more im- 
portant matters to attend to. 

To these critics, I respond with an emphatic 
appeal to remember what America truly repre- 
sents. 

In America, we revere the need to stand up 
in the face of oppression, to recognize deplor- 
able discrimination and stop at nothing to 
break down the wall, and to vehemently 
oppose any future oppression targeted at a 
people, whether it be against you, me, or 
anyone else. The Armenians' plight in the 
Ottoman Empire from 1915 to 1923 is a per- 
fect example of why these national values of 
ours are vital. It is as much an American 
issues as it would be if it took place in the 
United States, due partly to our large Armeni- 
an-American citizenry, and perhaps even more 
importantly because, as Rev. Martin Luther 
King, Jr., proclaimed, injustice against anyone 
is injustice against everyone. Our great Ameri- 
can principles know no boundaries. We must 
speak out against persecution irrespective of 
where the offense occurs. Furthermore, in re- 
sponse to the critics, we are not "rehashing" 
since we have not yet officially recognized the 
atrocities of that period, there is much to be 
gained by this acknowledgment because rec- 
ognition hinders repetition, and what could be 
more important than taking a solid stand 
against an incidence of extreme ethnic dis- 
crimination? It is never too late to right a 
wrong: Today, the United States of America 
must lend its voice to the triumph of justice 
and the vindication of a people. 

The historical record of the Ottoman Empire 
from 1915 to 1923 unequivocally reflects what 
we today would denounce as gross violations 
of human rights, en masse. Large numbers of 
Armenians were forcibly rounded up, deprived 
of their basic rights as citizens, sometimes 
exiled, and often exterminated. Although the 
record would by no means have been im- 
proved by implementing this policy against all 
persons in the empire, the invidious applica- 
tion of this policy to persons of Armenian her- 
itage exacerbates these offenses to the level 
of crimes against humanity. It is true that it is 
uncertain whether there was an official policy 
of extermination; but the acts spoke for them- 
selves. Some few public officials at the time 
had the courage to express outrage over the 
events. In 1915, U.S. Ambassador Henry Mor- 
genthau expressed his dismay to the U.S. 
Secretary of State over the activities by as- 
sessing that, 

* * * it appears that a campaign of race ex- 
termination is in progress under the pretext 
of reprisal against rebellion. 

He resigned his post in 1916 in protest of 
such offenses, choosing instead to spread the 
word about the atrocities. Since that time, 
Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Jimmy 
Carter, and Ronald Reagan have all publicly 
recognized the truth of Morgenthau's assess- 
ment. 

But recognizing these past offenses are by 
no means an indictment against our present- 
day friends in Turkey. The offenders and the 
offenses are long past, Turkey has proven 



itself to be a trusted and invaluable ally, and 
the Turkish Government has proven itself to 
be a responsible government which in no way 
engages in such deplorable activities. Even 
Kemal Ataturk himself, the founder of the 
Turkish Republic, acknowledged that, 

These left-overs from the former Young 
Turkey Party . . . should have been made to 
account for the lives of millions of our 
Christian subjects who were ruthlessly 
driven en masse from their homes and mas- 
sacred. 

As Ataturk distanced himself from the per- 
petrators of those crimes, so too has Turkey 
distanced itself from the reproachable conduct 
of its predecessors in power. 

But the historical facts must be acknowl- 
edged. America has expressed limitless out- 
rage concerning the Nazi genocide of the 
Jews. America has been fomenting opposition 
to the ethnic hypocrisy in South Africa. Amer- 
ica has very recently taken a strong position 
in support of the Hungarian minority in Roma- 
nia that is being subjected to assorted govern- 
mental prejudice. America is beginning to 
assert itself against the tyrannical totalitarian- 
ism and human rights abuses of Pinochet's 
regime in Chile. And the Armenian genocide 
of 1915-23 defies distinction from these inci- 
dents. If we let the travails of millions of Ar- 
menians elude our sympathy, then we 
become politically motivated hypocrites. If we 
forget their struggle, then we are liable to turn 
a blind eye toward other infernos. If we tell 
the worldwide Armenian community that we 
do not believe they were tormented, then we 
plead ignorance to the world. Not a day more 
may be allowed to pass without the United 
States proclaiming its soliditary to the princi- 
ples of human rights. We must be effusive in 
our opposition — in word and in action — to any 
occurrence of crimes against humanity, wher- 
ever they occur, whether perpetrated by friend 
or foe. The United States has too great a na- 
tional integrity than to let it swerve from the 
foundation on which it is based. 

Recognition of the genocide of Armenians 
from 1915-23 cannot reverse the damage 
done. But it can reaffirm the United States' in- 
exorable values and tell the descendants of 
those Armenians that, "We are with you." 

Mr. FLORIO. Mr. Speaker, on April 24, 
1988, we are called upon by our consciences 
to remember a tragic event that devastated 
the foundations of humanity and scarred a 
culture and a peoples. Next year on April 24, 
we are called upon to remember the tragedy 
that took away the lives of 1 V-± million Armeni- 
ans. 

History records this event. There is no de- 
nying the evidence and the number of people 
who perished at the hands of the soldiers of 
the Ottoman Empire between the years 1915 
and 1923. 

Before 1915, the Armenians had faced the 
persistent hostility of a ruling empire. Segre- 
gated and separated, the Armenians were 
often subjected to cruelty and to death. 

Starting on May 17, 1915, with the edict of 
deportation issued from the office of the Otto- 
man Emperor, the Armenians were systemati- 
cally herded and driven out of the country 
under the guard of special organization ofli- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23057 



cers recruited from the ranks of the prison 
population. 

Driven across the desert to Syria, IVfe mil- 
lion Armenians perished en route. Some fell to 
disease, some fell to starvation. Many fell 
victim to the hatred that culminated in the 
massacre of a peoples. 

Over half a million other Armenians wound 
their way out of the empire, and the Armenian 
presence in the empire came to an end. 

We are marking together the plight of the 
Armenians during these 8 long years of perse- 
cution and death. 

This is a call to conscience. We are asked 
to remember this holocaust of men, women, 
and children. 

A national day of remembrance is a memo- 
rial to the lives that were lost during these 
years under the Ottoman Empire. 

This remembrance is not an offense to the 
Turkish Republic. For many years, the United 
States and Turkey have shared a common 
desire for peace and democracy in the Near 
East. In that tradition, we are called upon to 
remember and to remind ourselves that the 
tragedy of the Armenian peoples should never 
be repeated. 

Mustapha Kemal, the founder of modern 
Turkey, recognized the massacre of all the Ar- 
menians. 

Our Nation has recognized before the need 
to commemorate the tragic loss of life. Even 
the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Council has rec- 
ognized the suffering of the Armenians and in- 
tends to incorporate the suffering of those 
peoples in the memorial to be built here in the 
Nation's Capital. 

April 24, 1988, is a single day to remember 
the suffering that man has often brought upon 
his fellow man. It is a single day when we will 
hopefully join together and remember not only 
the Armenians of history but the need for 
human rights forever. 

Mr. DOWNEY of New York. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise today in support of House Joint Resolu- 
tion 132 designating a national commemora- 
tion of the Armenian genocide. As my col- 
leagues know, we have discussed this issue 
many times in the past few years. I am 
amazed at the controversy this resolution has 
caused. 

Today, more than ever, we need to reaffirm 
our resolve that genocide is a crime which 
can never be tolerated, which can never be 
ignored. I am distressed by the argument that 
we cannot really be sure that genocide oc- 
curred. I am, quite frankly, even more dis- 
tressed by the argument that even if genocide 
did occur, we still should not remind people of 
it for fear of offending our allies. 

Today, there are those who would deny the 
fact that Nazi Germany killed 6 million Jews. 
We do not accept that argument. We know 
full well that the Holocaust happened. In fact, 
we recognize it as one of the most critical 
events of all history. There is little doubt that 
1 Vi million Armenians were slaughtered by 
the Ottoman government between 1915 and 
1923. What then stops us from commemorat- 
ing that horrific event? Strategic consider- 
ations? We are, in effect, begin told that if we 
pass this resolution the Turkish Government 
will be a less reliable NATO ally. It is also 
hinted that U.S. defense manufacturers could 
lose valuable procurement contracts. Must we 



really carry out a cost-benefit analysis on this 
resolution? If we must, then pray tell me what 
is the peculiar calculus that we will use to 
weigh the loss of contracts against the loss of 
our moral stature if we give in to this veiled 
threat? 

I urge my colleagues to vote for House 
Joint Resolution 132. How can we turn a deaf 
ear to the cries of the Armenians whose tragic 
deaths foreshadowed later events in Europe, 
Cambodia, and South Africa? 

Mr. GALLO. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in 
support of House Joint Resolution 132, a bill 
to designate April 24, 1988, as a "National 
Day of Remembrance for the Armenian Geno- 
cide of 1915-1923." April 24 is an important 
day for Armenian-Americans. On this day in 
1915, scores of Armenian political, religious, 
educational, and intellecturai leaders were ar- 
rested and deported to Anatolia. 

Many of those taken from their homes were 
murdered by the Ottomans. Those who were 
not were driven out of the war zones and or- 
dered to walk across the deserts of Syria and 
Mesopotamia to relocation centers. These 
forced marches caused countless Armenians 
to die en route. 

Henry Morganthau, U.S. Ambassador to the 
Ottoman Empire at the time of the genocide, 
wrote to the U.S. Government detailing the 
atrocities taking place against the Armenians. 
Morganthau wrote, at the time: 

Deportation of and excesses against peace- 
ful Armenians is increasing and from har- 
rowing reports of eyewitnesses it appears 
that a compaign of race extermination is in 
progress under a pretext of reprisal against 
rebellion. 

Winston Churchill, a Member of Parliament 
at the time chronicled his eyewitness account 
and wrote: 

In 1915 the Turkish Government began 
the infamous deportation of Armenians to 
Asia Minor. Three or four hundred thou- 
sand men, women, and children escaped into 
Russian territory; but the clearance of the 
race from Asia Minor was about as complete 
as such an act, on a scale so great, could be. 

April 24, 1915, marked the day the geno- 
cide against the Armenian people, culture, and 
homeland began. Americans of Armenian de- 
scent across this country and around the 
world remember their relatives who were its 
victims. For them House Joint Resolution 132, 
if adopted, will pay tribute to their ancestors 
who died in the "forgotten genocide." They 
have not forgotten their history and their herit- 
age, nor should we. 

It is for these reasons, Mr. Speaker, that I 
support this resolution that calls upon the 
President to issue a proclamation calling on 
the people of the United States to observe 
this date as a day of remembrance for the 1 .5 
million people of Armenian ancestry who were 
victims of the genocide perpetrated by the 
governments of the Ottoman Empire from 
1915 to 1923, which, I want to emphasize, is 
prior to the establishment of the Republic of 
Turkey. In their memory this date is com- 
memorated by all Armenians and their friends 
throughout the world. 

Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
support of House Joint Resolution 132 desig- 
nating April 24, 1988, as "National Day of Re- 
membrance of the Armenian Genocide of 
1915-1923." 



For we must rekindle the world's memory of 
the Armenian genocide. It ushered in an era 
of unprecedented cruelty, of crimes against 
humanity which were of such magnitude that 
one could not believe that such crimes could 
occur much less be repeated. For surely the 
world would not permit such to reoccur. Yet 
the Armenians' tragedy was forgotten all too 
quickly. And crimes against humanity on an 
even larger scale occurred years later. 

The world lives with a terrible, open wound; 
1.5 million of its own perished in 1915 and 
1916 alone in forced marches and outright 
massacres. Some of today's Armenian com- 
munity were witness to the deportations and 
massacres of their families and friends in the 
Ottoman Empire. Others have only read or 
heard about these atrocities. All of them live 
with the knowledge that their people's very 
survival was in jeopardy in the Ottoman 
Empire. 

We must never forget the senseless deaths 
of 1.5 million Armenians. We must continue to 
fight to ensure that such atrocities — which 
have taken place all too often, and to which 
the world has often turned its back— never 
take place again anywhere in the world. We 
must never allow the world community to fall 
to such depths of complacency in the face of 
man's inhumanity to man. 

This is the goal of House Joint Resolution 
132: To brand indelibly upon the world's 
memory the imprint of a tragedy which must 
never be forgotten. The magnitude of the Ar- 
menian genocide is too great. Our responsibil- 
ity to remember that tragedy, to learn its les- 
sons, is too pressing. 

Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I should like to 
share with you and my colleagues some 
thoughts on the continuing unwillingness of 
the Turkish Government to recognize the trag- 
edy of the Armenian genocide of 1915. It is 
true, as the Turkish Government insists, ihat 
the atrocities suffered by the Armenians were 
prepetrated by the Ottoman Turkish Empire 
and not by the current Turkish Republic. Still, I 
deeply feel that the continuity of culture, popu- 
lation and geography create a moral impera- 
tive for the current Turkish Government to ad- 
dress itself accurately and honestly to the Ar- 
menian genocide. After all, the Federal Re- 
public of Germany is surely an altogether dif- 
ferent government from the regime of Hitler's 
Third Reich. Yet the West German Govern- 
ment has assumed vast moral responsibility 
for recording the history of the Holocaust and 
making reparation payments to its survivors. 

The United States can and should maintain 
friendly and constructive relations with both 
Armenians and Turks. However, such relations 
must be rooted in our commitment to histori- 
cal truths and to the universal principles of 
human rights. Surely the truth about the Arme- 
nian martyrs should not be denied or forgot- 
ten. 

I am both very well aware of and very proud 
of the fact that I represent a large and politi- 
cally vibrant Armenian community. I share with 
Armenians around the world an intense inter- 
est in Middle Eastern affairs. I am especially 
concerned with the role the United States 
plays in that region. 

As you all know there is a great deal of ten- 
sion between the United States and Turkey. 






23058 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



This tension derives from two sources. 
Though I want to mention both of them, I am 
going to confine the rest of my remarks to the 
second problem. 

First, Turkey used American military equip- 
ment in the invasion of Cyprus. That equip- 
ment was given to Turkey with the explicit un- 
derstanding that it would be used only for de- 
fensive purposess. It was given to Turkey so 
that Turkey could play its proper role as a 
member of the NATO alliance. 

I and many other Members of Congress 
have been unwilling to support Turkish arms 
requests in view of the outrageous misuse to 
which American arms were put during the war 
on Cyprus. I will continue to view such re- 
quests with a high degree of suspicion. 

The second strain between the United 
States and Turkey comes from Turkey's past 
and present human rights record. Naturally, 
today I have uppermost in mind the mon- 
strous treatment of Armenians in this century. 
I do, however, want to note that other minori- 
ties including Greeks, Jews, and Christians 
have suffered at the hands of the Turkish 
Muslim majority. 

True, the Turks of today did not commit the 
genocide of 65 years ago that wiped out half 
of the world's Armenian population. However, 
the Turks of today and their government have 
shown no remorse, no sense of decency or 
compassion. They have not paid a cent in rep- 
arations to the survivors of the holocaust nor 
have they permitted Armenians to return to 
historic areas of settlement in Eastern Turkey. 

I believe the dead, the victims of the Arme- 
nian holocaust, are being denied their human 
rights. We do not usually think of dead people 
as having human rights. Yet I believe they do. 

The most elementary human rights of the 
Armenian martyrs were irretrivably taken from 
them at the time they were murdered. They 
were denied the right to a decent burial. They 
were denied the right to a final resting place 
to which their kin could come to pay respects. 
Like the victims of the Nazi genocide against 
the Jews the martyrs disappeared into un- 
marked mass graves. 

There is one right of the dead which the 
martyrs have been denied but which can still 
be restored: That is the right to have the 
world hear and learn the truth about the cir- 
cumstances of their death. 

I cannot find language strong enough to ex- 
press my outrage at the fact that the Turkish 
government, the Turkish educational and cul- 
tural establishments, Turkish historians and 
journalists, almost without exception, have lied 
about the mass murders of one and half mil- 
lion Armenians in 1915. 

The Turkish myth, like the agitprop of 
George Orwell's 1984 simply ignores all the 
facts of the period. The Turks have calmly in- 
sisted that "Of course Armenians died during 
the difficult years of World War I, so did many 
other people. There were shortages of food 
and deaths due to starvation. Health care 
services were disrupted throughout the coun- 
try resulting in deaths which might have been 
prevented. But this is not murder, this is 
merely the unfortunate correlates of war and 
poverty." 

This lie must be exposed in and out of 
Turkey. Writers, artists, filmmakers and educa- 
tors, both from within and outside the Armeni- 



an community must invent vehicles for deliver- 
ing the truth about the Armenian genocide. 
Right here in Los Angeles there are still large 
numbers of survivors with clear and vivid 
memories of the death marches of 1915. I 
know when the older Armenians saw how the 
Khmer Rouge drove the population out of 
Phnom Penh and to their deaths from starva- 
tion dehydration, disease, and machine gun 
bullets, they could not help remembering their 
own experiences at the hands of the Turks. 

I must inject here a note of caution. Natural- 
ly, not every Turk was a murderer nor does 
every Turk harbor hatred today against 
Greeks and Armenians. Yet, we cannot let our 
tolerance cloud our vision of the role of the 
Turkish government in the events we are dis- 
cussing. Certainly, if the people and govern- 
ment of West Germany could be brought to 
acknowledge — to some degree— their role in 
the crimes of the Nazis, no less should be ex- 
pected of the people and government of 
Turkey. 

Those of us who know the history of the Ar- 
menian genocide must not underestimate the 
ignorance of others. The vast majority of 
Americans do not know about this genocide. 
Even those who do know about it are general- 
ly unaware of the scope and even more un- 
aware of its world historical significance. 

The Armenian historian Marjorie Hagopian 
relates a little known anecdote in the life of 
Adolph Hitler. At one of the Fuhrer's earliest 
meetings about the Jewish problem, Hitler 
outlined his plans for the total extermination of 
the entire Jewish populations of Germany and 
German-occupied countries. One of the men 
at the meeting asked with astonishment how 
such a plan could be carried out. "Would not 
world opinion prevent us from doing such a 
thing?" Hitler laughed. "World opinion! A joke! 
Who ever cared about the Armenians?" 

Each genocide provides a foundation for 
subsequent horrors. Each historical misrepre- 
sentation of efforts to exterminate a particular 
ethnic group increases the likelihood that such 
efforts will be undertaken again in another 
time and place. 

The United States has leverage in dealing 
with Turkey on human rights questions. The 
Turkish Republic is heavily dependent on us 
economically, diplomatically and militarily. It 
cannot afford to ignore serious concerns of 
the American Government. 

I want to conclude by expressing my total 
disagreement with those in the State Depart- 
ment and the White House who feel the 
events of the past 2 years have made the 
United States far more dependent on Turkey 
than Turkey is on us. 

They reason that the United States desper- 
ately needs an alliance with Turkey because 
we have lost our listening posts and other sur- 
veillance capabilities we enjoyed before the 
Iranian revolution. They reason that the out- 
right conquest of Afghanistan by the Soviet 
Union has further weakened the United States 
in that critical region along the Soviet border. 
Their conclusion is that the United States 
must humbly and gratefully accept Turkish 
military cooperation and must, at the same 
time, refrain from troubling the Turkish authori- 
ties with idealistic talk of human rights. 

I reason the opposite. I reason that Turkey 
has been weakened by the fall of Afghanisan. 



It seems obvious to me that Turkey is in more 
need of American defense assistance than 
ever now that she has an Iranian neighbor 
that is literally without a government. Certainly 
it is not in Turkey's interest for Iran to be 
under the rule of chaos fanaticism and xeno- 
phobia. 

We have both a moral and a political obliga- 
tion to press to the outermost limits our influ- 
ence in Turkey. American indifference to 
human rights in any country with whom we are 
closely allied deprives us of any claim to lead- 
ership of the free world. 

As your representative in Congress, I will 
continue to fight for a strong human rights 
program. I will continue to work for vigorous 
American efforts on behalf of Armenians 
seeking just redress from Turkey. Finally, I will 
do all in my power to see that the history of 
the Armenian Holocaust is told widely, truthful- 
ly and in full. 

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposi- 
tion to the rule on House Joint Resolution 
132, and the resolution itself which com- 
memorates the genocide of Armenians in the 
Ottoman Empire early in this century. 

That resolution has been offered in Con- 
gress for several years, and has attracted 
strong opposition from the State Department 
and the Republic of Turkey. They have be- 
lieved that the resolution, despite recent im- 
proving amendments, casts aspersions on 
Turkey; that it may encourage anti-Turk terror- 
ist acts by Armenian radicals; and that its use 
of the term "genocide" may be inappropriate, 
given scholarly debate over whether the kill- 
ings of Armenians were aimed at eradicating a 
population, or were the result of a bloody civil 
war. 

I am sensitive to the undeniable suffering of 
hundreds of thousands of Armenians. Never- 
theless, in my judgment this resolution could 
damage our relations with Turkey and have 
other adverse consequences which out weigh 
any advantage that might be gained by its 
passage. 

This House should stop belaboring its allies 
to no good purpose. The proponents of this 
resolution have carried it well past the time of 
good effect. Its now time to lay it to rest. We 
should defeat the rule, or the resolution. 

Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, today we will be 
told that passage of this resolution will cause 
an increase in terrorism. But are we to believe 
that a group of terrorists, who have already 
shown their contempt for laws and civilization 
by resorting to violence, are greatly affected 
by action of the U.S. Congress? I think not. 

Others will tell us that if this resolution 
passes that relations with the Republic of 
Turkey will be severely damaged and that our 
strategic NATO bases in that country will be 
threatened. But are we to believe that our rec- 
ognition of a barbarous act by the long de- 
funct Ottoman Empire will cause the Republic 
of Turkey to forgo hundreds of millions of dol- 
lars in financial aid? That Turkey will pull out 
of an alliance against a common threat. I think 
not. 

For while we have had decades of conflict 
with Russia, Turkey has had centuries of war 
with Russia. The geopolitics that have made 
this a satisfying relationship for both countries 
will not be changed. Besides, it is possible to 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23059 



differ publicly yet retain a strong relationship 
with an ally. Turkey has demonstrated this by 
voting against the United States 62 percent of 
the time in the 40th United Nations General 
Assembly. 

Finally, we will be told that we do not pos- 
sess enough documentation to properly label 
the attempted extermination of the Armenians 
as a genocide. But are we to validate this ar- 
gument because the Ottoman Turks were not 
as systematic and efficient as the Nazis? Be- 
cause the Ottoman Turks' form of ovens and 
gas chambers was the Syrian desert? I think 
not. 

The U.S. National Archives holds innumera- 
ble reports by consuls and ambassadors de- 
tailing the process by which the Armenian 
population of the Ottoman Empire was deci- 
mated. The New York Times headlines of the 
time read: "Armenians Sent to Desert to 
Perish" (August 18, 1915), "Extinction Men- 
aces Armenia (September 25, 1915), and 
"Death of the Armenian People" (October 2, 
1915). Even the leader of the Ottoman Turks, 
Talaat Pasha, told U.S. Ambassador Henry 
Morgenthau that, "we have already disposed 
of three quarters of the Armenians * * * we 
have got to finish with them." 

Mr. Speaker, civilization has witnessed the 
near destruction of the Armenian people in 
part because the world turned the other way. 
Today, I urge all of my colleagues to look 
truth straight in the eye and support this reso- 
lution. Lets us give solace to the still grieving 
Armenian people and give mankind a better 
understanding of genocide in order to prevent 
future atrocities. 

Mr. ATKINS. I rise in strong support of 
House Joint Resolution 132, the bill for a Day 
of Remembrance of the Armenian Genocide. 

Over the course of 8 long years, the Arme- 
nian people were systematically reduced from 
a proud nation of nearly 2 million people, 
living on land that had belonged to them for 
nearly 2,000 years to less than a million living in 
exile. But the world granted little sympathy to 
the victims. The atrocity that gave birth to the 
term "Genocide" was hushed up and soon 
forgotten. It is only now, 70 years later, that 
we consider granting the small dignity of a re- 
membrance day. 

Someday, historians will label the 20th cen- 
tury as the time of the triumph of science. We 
have invented technical wonders as diverse 
as spacecraft and microwave ovens, super 
colliders and VCR's. We can feed more 
people, prevent epidemics, and examine our 
world in detail from outer space. We see our- 
selves as more enlightened and civilized than 
the people of previous centuries. 

Yet, more than three times this century, 
governments have attempted the most terrify- 
ing of feats— the annihilation of an entire 
people. Other governments have stood by and 
not acted to stop the genocides. Our claims to 
civilization are undermined by our inability to 
prevent such atrocities. 

It is no longer possible to say, "It cannot 
happen today." That is what we said as Nazi 
Germany carried out a barbaric Holocaust, 20 
years after the Armenian genocide. That is 
what we said 40 years later as Pol Pot led the 
extermination of millions of Cambodians. Per- 
haps, if the Armenian genocide had not been 
hushed up, covered up to prevent insult, it 



might have served as an example to be avoid- 
ed. Perhaps it would have been the last geno- 
cide. 

It is within the power of the human commu- 
nity to say "never again" and mean it. We 
must establish a policy of prevention. Two 
steps are essential to this policy: pursuing the 
perpetrators and bringing them to justice, and 
remembering, discussing, and learning from 
our past. 

In the case of Nazi Germany, we brought 
many of the perpetrators to trial at Nurem- 
berg. Some are still being brought to justice 
today. We have studied the event and sought 
to learn its causes, and often held days of re- 
membrance and memorial ceremonies. In the 
case of Cambodia, we have held remem- 
brances, but must still act to bring Pol Pot and 
his cabal to trail. 

In the case of Armenia, it is impossible to 
bring the perpetrators to justice. The current 
Turkish Government obviously cannot be held 
accountable for the events of 70 years ago. 
But we can try to remember, to discuss and 
study the Armenian genocide. A day of re- 
membrance is a small but crucial step in our 
battle to forestall future artocities. 

Future historians will see it as a mark of our 
humanity and our civilization that we are will- 
ing to acknowledge, not deny, the darker side 
of our past. I urge my colleagues to vote for 
the bill. 

Mr. LEVINE of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise 
in support of House Resolution 238, the rule 
providing for consideration of House Joint 
Resolution 132, the Day of Remembrance of 
Armenian Genocide, which I also support. 

There is one primary reason I am support- 
ing this resolution, and it can be found in the 
title itself: "remembrance." It is often said that 
those who forget the past are condemned to 
repeat it. This is not merely a clever turn of a 
phrase. It is a warning which history tells us 
we ignore at our own peril. 

Forty-two years ago marked the end of a 
conflagration in which the majority of Europe's 
Jewish population perished in the fiery fur- 
naces of the Nazi death camps. The principal 
reason? Simply that they were Jewish, and 
thus marked for extermination by a perversely 
racist ideology. 

But there is another, equally insidious, 
reason that the Holocaust was allowed to 
happen. To paraphrase the infamous query of 
Hitler, "Who remembers the Armenians?" Had 
the Western world not suffered collective 
moral amnesia about the slaughter of the Ar- 
menians two decades earlier, it is quite possi- 
ble that the Jews of Europe might have been 
spared. 

To this day, therefore, we remember the 
victims of the Holocaust so as never again to 
allow such unspeakable atrocities to occur. 
But there is still little recognition of the tragic 
fate that befell the Armenians of the Ottoman 
empire. It is time that this unconscionable 
oversight be rectified. 

April 24 is a day of great importance to 
American-Armenians, many of whose ances- 
tors perished beginning on that day in 1915. It 
was then that scores of Armenian religious, 
political, educational, and intellectual leaders 
in Constantinople were arrested and deported 
to Anatolia. Many were taken from their 
homes and murdered. Many more died during 



forced marches and deportations. Over an 8- 
year period, there were upward of a million Ar- 
menian casualties. It is in the memory of all 
these victims that proponents— properly — 
seek passage of this resolution. 

Critics of House Joint Resolution 132 claim 
that this resolution will have a significantly 
negative impact on our relations with Turkey. I 
see no reason why it should. 

I do not accept that this resolution applies 
in any way to the Turkey of 1987. Indeed, the 
resolution specifically indicates that this event 
took place ". . . in the Ottoman empire prior 
to the establishment of the Republic of 
Turkey." Put another way, I would never want 
to jeopardize relations with our Turkish 
friends; and I don't think this resolution 
does— or should— do that. 

Turkey is a close friend and ally of the 
United States. It plays a key role in NATO and 
the defense of the West. Turkey rightfully de- 
serves recognition for its role as a haven for 
the oppressed over the centuries. None of 
these important realities are either compro- 
mised or diminished by this resolution. 

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, the imperative is 
remembrance and recognition, for all the rea- 
sons mentioned above. That is why this reso- 
lution is so important. 

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and 
the resolution. 

Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition 
to both House Joint Resolution 132 and its 
corresponding rule. Many of us know, this res- 
olution is driven in part, by partisan politics 
here at home. Numerous Armenian special in- 
terest groups which are powerful supporters 
of this resolution are ever-present elements in 
our own domestic politics. It should be duly 
noted that these organizations contribute 
healthy amounts of money to promote their 
principles through means other than legisla- 
tion. 

Nevertheless, House Joint Resolution 132 is 
not merely a symbolic gesture on behalf of a 
particular American ethnic group as some 
would like us to believe. It is in fact a very 
controversial piece of legislation with long- 
term foreign policy implications for the United 
States and the Western alliance. Furthermore, 
this legislation could ultimately result in an 
erosion of the Turkish democracy. 

I am seriously concerned that passage or 
even consideration of this measure would sig- 
nificantly damage our relations with Turkey, a 
NATO ally and friend of the United States. We 
have major national security interest in pre- 
serving and strengthening our relations with 
Turkey, whose government and people are 
deeply offended by this resolution. I certainly 
do not wish to see the second largest army in 
NATO disenfranchised because of an Ameri- 
can resolution concerning ethnic disturbance 
that occurred during a turbulent period of his- 
tory some 70 years ago. 

The resolution before us today asserts that 
the Armenians were victims of genocide. But 
in fact, many experts question whether "geno- 
cide" is the proper term for what transpired in 
the years after 1915. It is important to note 
that the majority of the leading United States 
academic specialists on Turkey, the Ottoman 
Empire, and the Middle East have written to 
every Member of Congress concerning this 






rJ7J&Jw/Ojjr>v9Kfi 



■■■■■■■ 



23060 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



resolution. Their correspondence, when Con- 
gress considered this issue in 1985, chal- 
lenged the factual accuracy of this resolution. 
It is my belief, that this Congress should not 
attempt to clarify historical events through leg- 
islation. 

Furthermore, this bill would simply add fuel 
to the fires of international terrorism. Armeni- 
an terrorists have murdered more than 70 
people around the world, including 40 Turkish 
diplomats. The events of 1915-23 are used to 
justify these heinous crimes. Consequently, 
the Turkish public justifiably believes that pas- 
sage of this resolution will be interpreted by 
these terrorists not only as a legitimization 
and vindication of their crimes by our Con- 
gress, but also as an encouragement for con- 
tinuing their series of international acts of ter- 
rorism. This stamp of approval will not help 
deter terrorism, which is one of our common 
goals. 

Let me conclude by saying that my opposi- 
tion to the House Joint Resolution 132 and its 
corresponding rule in no way represents indif- 
ference to the suffering of the Armenian 
people nor to their desire to achieve recogni- 
tion of a tragic series of events. In the long 
history of man's inhumanity to man this is but 
one of many instances which we need to 
recall in order to sensitize ourselves and pre- 
vent further such episodes. Nevertheless, we 
cannot redress the various ills of events of 70 
years ago by legislating a particular version of 
history. No matter how eloquently worded, jus- 
tice cannot be served by the consideration 
and adoption of House Joint Resolution 132. 

□ 1235 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Glickman). The gentleman from Mis- 
souri [Mr. Taylor] has 2 minutes re- 
maining. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, the resolution is ex- 
tremely dangerous to the cause of 
peace because it distracts us from co- 
operation with our NATO ally, 
Turkey. 

It presents a situation where the ac- 
tions of this House will be cited and 
used against Turkey by the forces of 
reaction and terrorism, who seek re- 
venge not recognition. 

The sponsors of the resolution want 
to thrust this House headlong into a 
70-year-old controversy, and we simply 
are not going to settle it. We can't 
settle it, we ought not make it worse. 

About the only purpose served by 
this resolution is to reopen old 
wounds. It presents a negative mark 
on history that is 70 years old. There 
is no concern for the future. 

Mr. Speaker, the House should be 
concerned about the future. 

We should look for positive steps 
that might heal the wounds and quiet 
the differences between the modern 
day descendants of the Christian and 
Muslim people of Armenian and Turk- 
ish ancestor y. 

House Joint Resolution 132 does not 
do that. 



In the strongest terms possible, I 
urge defeat of this rule. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Moakley] has 2 minutes and 45 sec- 
onds remaining. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Ging- 
rich]. 

Mr. GINGRICH. Mr. Speaker, I 
simply want the record to show that I 
strongly favor the passage of this reso- 
lution and the adoption of this rule 
today. 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from North Carolina [Mr. 
Valentine.] 

Mr. VALENTINE. Mr. Speaker, I 
rise to express my strong opposiiton 
both the the rule and to the joint reso- 
lution and to associate myself with the 
wise remarks made by the gentleman 
from Kentucky [Mr. Hubbard.] 

Mr. MOAKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 
myself the balance of my time. 

Mr. Speaker, again I would like to 
stress that the purpose of House Joint 
Resolution 132 is certainly not to em- 
barrass the current Turkish Govern- 
ment. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, the resolu- 
tion includes language specifically 
stating that the genocide occurred 
long before the current Turkish Gov- 
ernment existed. 

The resolution has two purposes. It 
seeks to commemorate the suffering of 
the Armenians, the parents and grand- 
parents of many of our neighbors here 
in the United States, whose families 
fled from oppression. 

However, Mr. Speaker, what the res- 
olution very specifically seeks to do is 
to make clear that the Armenian geno- 
cide is a definite historical fact. One 
might have hoped that the graves of a 
million and a half victims— marked 
and many more unmarked— would 
serve as the unimpeachable proof. 

Certainly, in a contemporary period, 
the facts were established beyond 
doubt. The events were particularly 
acknowledged, and forcefully con- 
demned, by the great Turkish Patriot 
Ataturk. 

As late as 1948, the drafters of the 
United Nation's genocide convention, 
had the events of 1915 through 1923 
specifically in mind as one of the two 
great genocides of this century. 

But, in more recent years, there has 
been an attempt, in some academic cir- 
cles, to split some very narrow hairs 
and to rewrite history. Today the 
House has an opportunity to reject 
this revisionism. 

Mr. Speaker, House Joint Resolution 
132 sets aside one day, April 24, 1988, 
to acknowledge the pain and suffering 
of the men, women, and children who 
died for no other reason than the fact 
that they were Armenians. We owe it 
to the survivors— and particularly to 
those who are our neighbors in Amer- 



ica—as well as to the memory of a mil- 
lion and a half dead, to remember this 
tragedy and to learn from it. 

On that day, Armenians throughout 
the world, including the United States, 
will mark this day— as they do every 
year— to memorialize and mourn the 
dead, in church services, reunions, ral- 
lies and marches. This resolution will 
make the events of 1988 particularly 
significant. The resolution will enable 
this Congress to participate in sup- 
port, in a particularly meaningful way. 

Mr. Speaker, the House has an op- 
portunity today to begin the healing 
process for the survivors and the fami- 
lies of victims who were killed during 
this tragic time in world history. By 
voting for the resolution Congress is 
saying that this genocide did indeed 
occur and we must take steps to 
ensure that it never happen again. 

I urge my colleagues to vote for the 
rule, and to pass House Joint Resolu- 
tion 132. The time to begin the heal- 
ing is now. 

Mr. Speaker, I have no further re- 
quests for time, and I move the previ- 
ous question on the resolution. 

The previous question was ordered. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
question is on the resolution. 

The question was taken; and the 
Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it. 

Mr. TAYLOR. Mr. Speaker, I object 
to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the 
point of order that a quorum is not 
present. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evi- 
dently a quorum is not present. 

The Sergeant at Arms will notify 
absent Members. 

The vote was taken by electronic 
device, and there were— yeas 189, nays 
201, answered "present" 1, not voting 
42, as follows: 

[Roll No. 312] 
YEAS— 189 



Ackerman 


Courter 


Gordon 


Akaka 


Dannemeyer 


Grant 


Anderson 


DeFazio 


Gray (ID 


Andrews 


Dellums 


Green 


Annunzio 


Derrick 


Gregg 


Applegate 


Dingell 


Guarini 


Atkins 


Dixon 


Hall (OH) 


Bates 


Donnelly 


Hall (TX) 


Bentley 


Dornan (CA) 


Hamilton 


Berman 


Downey 


Hawkins 


Biaggi 


Dreier 


Hayes (ID 


Bilbray 


Durbin 


Henry 


Bilirakis 


Dymally 


Hertel 


Bliley 


Dyson 


Hochbrueckner 


Boggs 


Eckart 


Howard 


Bonior (MI) 


Edwards (CA) 


Hoyer 


Borski 


Espy 


Hughes 


Boxer 


Evans 


Hunter 


Brennan 


Pascell 


Jacobs 


Broomfield 


Fawell 


Jeffords 


Brown (CA) 


Fazio 


Johnson (CT) 


Bruce 


Feighan 


Jones (TN) 


Bryant 


Ford (Ml) 


Jontz 


Cardin 


Frank 


Kaptur 


Carr 


Gallegly 


Kastenmeier 


Clay 


Gallo 


Kennedy 


Coats 


Gejdenson 


Kennelly 


Coelho 


Gekas 


Kildee 


Coleman (TX) 


Gilman 


Kleczka 


Conte 


Gingrich 


Konnyu 


Conyers 


Gonzalez 


Leach (IA) 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23061 



Lehman (CA) 

Leland 

Levin (MI) 

Levine (CA) 

Lewis (CA) 

Lewis <GA) 

Lipinski 

Lowry (WA) 

Lujan 

Lungren 

Man ton 

Markey 

Martin (NY) 

Martinez 

Matsui 

McCloskey 

McHugh 

McMillen(MD) 

Mfume 

Miller (CA) 

Mineta 

Moakley 

Moorhead 

Morella 

Morrison (CT) 

Mrazek 

Nelson 

Nowak 

Oakar 

Oberstar 

Obey 

Owens (NY) 

Owens (UT) 



Anthony 

Archer 

Armey 

AuCoin 

Ballenger 

Barnard 

Bartlett 

Barton 

Bateman 

Bennett 

Bereuter 

Bevill 

Boehlert 

Bonker 

Bosco 

Boucher 

Boulter 

Brooks 

Brown (CO) 

Buechner 

Bunning 

Burton 

Byron 

Carper 

Chandler 

Chapman 

Chappell 

Cheney 

Clarke 

dinger 

Coble 

Coleman (MO) 

Combest 

Cooper 

Coughlin 

Coyne 

Craig 

Crane 

Darden 

Daub 

Davis (ID 

Davis (MI) 

de la Garza 

DeLay 

DeWine 

Dickinson 

Dicks 

DioGuardi 

Dorgan (ND) 

Duncan 

Dwyer 

Edwards (OK) 

Emerson 

English 

Erdreich 

Fields 

Pish 

Flake 

Foglietta 

Frenzel 



Packard 

Panetta 

Pashayan 

Pelosi 

Penny 

Pepper 

Perkins 

Porter 

Price (ID 

Richardson 

Rinaldo 

Ritter 

Rodino 

Roe 

Rose 

Rostenkowski 

Roth 

Roukema 

Roybal 

Russo 

Saxton 

Scheuer 

Schneider 

Schumer 

Sharp 

Sikorski 

Skaggs 

Smith (FD 

Smith (NJ) 

Smith. Robert 

(NH) 
Snowe 
Solomon 

NAYS— 201 

Frost 

Garcia 

Gibbons 

Glickman 

Goodling 

Gradison 

Grandy 

Gunderson 

Hammerschmidt 

Hansen 

Harris 

Hastert 

Hefley 

Hefner 

Herger 

Hiler 

Holloway 

Hopkins 

Horton 

Houghton 

Hubbard 

Huckaby 

Hutto 

Hyde 

Inhofe 

Ireland 

Jenkins 

Johnson (SD) 

Kanjorski 

Kasich 

Kolbe 

Kolter 

Kostmayer 

Kyi 

LaFalce 

Lagomarsino 

Lancaster 

Lantos 

Leath (TX) 

Lent 

Lewis (FD 

Lightfoot 

Livingston 

Lott 

Lowery (CA) 

Mack 

MacKay 

Madigan 

Marlenee 

Martin (ID 

Mazzoli 

McCandless 

McCollum 

McCurdy 

McDade 

McEwen 

McMillan (NO 

Meyers 

Mica 

Michel 



Spence 

St Germain 

Staggers 

Stark 

Stokes 

Stratton 

Studds 

Swift 

Swindall 

Synar 

Thomas (CA) 

Torres 

Torricelli 

Traficant 

Vento 

Visclosky 

Vucanovich 

Walgren 

Watkins 

Waxman 

Weiss 

Weldon 

Wheat 

Williams 

Wolf 

Wolpe 

Wortley 

Wyden 

Yates 

Yatron 

Young (AK) 



Miller (OH) 

Miller (WA) 

Molinari 

Mollohan 

Montgomery 

Moody 

Murphy 

Murtha 

Myers 

Nagle 

Natcher 

Neal 

Nichols 

Nielson 

Olin 

Ortiz 

Oxley 

Patterson 

Pease 

Petri 

Pickett 

Pickle 

Price (NO 

Pursell 

Quillen 

Rahall 

Rangel 

Ravenel 

Ray 

Regula 

Rhodes 

Ridge 

Roberts 

Robinson 

Rogers 

Rowland (CT) 

Rowland (GA) 

Sabo 

Saiki 

Sawyer 

Schaefer 

Schuette 

Schulze 

Sensenbrenner 

Shaw 

Shumway 

Shuster 

Sisisky 

Skeen 

Skelton 

Slattery 

Slaughter (NY) 

Slaughter (VA) 

Smith (IA) 

Smith (TX) 

Smith, Denny 

(OR) 
Smith, Robert 

(OR) 
Solarz 



Spratt 

Stallings 

Stangeland 

Stenholm 

Stump 

Sundquist 

Sweeney 

Tallon 



Tauke 
Taylor 

Thomas (GA) 
Upton 
Valentine 
Vander Jagt 
Volkmer 
Walker 



Weber 

Whittaker 

Whitten 

Wilson 

Wise 

Wylie 

Young (FD 



LEGISLATIVE SCHEDULE 



ANSWERED "PRESENT'-l 
Collins 





NOT VOTING- 


-42 


Alexander 


Flippo 


Luken, Thomas 


Aspin 


Florio 


Lukens, Donald 


Badham 


Foley 


Mavroules 


Baker 


Ford (TN) 


McGrath 


Beilenson 


Gaydos 


Morrison (WA) 


Boland 


Gephardt 


Parris 


Boner (TN) 


Gray (PA) 


Roemer 


Bustamante 


Hatcher 


Savage 


Callahan 


Hayes (LA) 


Schroeder 


Campbell 


Jones (NO 


Smith (NE) 


Crockett 


Kemp 


Tauzin 


Daniel 


Latta 


Towns 


Dowdy 


Lehman (FD 


Traxler 


Early 


Lloyd 


Udall 



□ 1250 

Mr. BROOKS changed his vote from 
"yea" to "nay." 

Mrs. KENNELLY, Mr. HAYES of Il- 
linois, and Mr. SOLOMON changed 
their votes from "nay" to "yea." 

So the resolution was not agreed to. 

The result of the vote was an- 
nounced as above recorded. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 



□ 1300 

PERMISSION FOR COMMITTEE 
ON AGRICULTURE TO HAVE 
UNTIL 6 P.M. FRIDAY, AUGUST 
28, 1987, TO FILE REPORT ON 
H.R. 3030, AGRICULTURAL 
CREDIT ACT OF 1987 

Mr. de la GARZA. Mr. Speaker, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Com- 
mittee on Agriculture may have until 
6 p.m., Friday, August 28, 1987, to file 
a report on H.R. 3030, the Agricultural 
Credit Act of 1987. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 



REPORT ON RESOLUTION PRO- 
VIDING FOR CONSIDERATION 
OF H.R. 1327, PUBLIC HEALTH 
SERVICE ACT, NATIONAL 

HEALTH SERVICE CORPS 

AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1987 
Mr. MOAKLEY, from the Commit- 
tee on Rules, submitted a privileged 
report (Rept. No. 100-248) on the reso- 
lution (H. Res. 253) providing for the 
consideration of the bill (H.R. 1327) to 
amend the Public Health Service Act 
to establish a National Health Service 
Corps Loan Repayment Program and 
to othewise revise and extend the pro- 
gram for the National Health Service 
Corps, which was referred to the 
House Calendar and ordered to be 
printed. 



(Mr. LOTT asked and was given per- 
mission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I have 
asked for this time for the purpose of 
learning what the schedule will be for 
the balance of the day and when we 
might be able to go on our district 
work period. 

Mr. Speaker, if my colleagues would 
be interested in the schedule, when 
they might go home, if any of you 
have any interest in that, I would be 
glad to yield to the distinguished ma- 
jority whip, the gentleman from Cali- 
fornia, for information on the sched- 
ule. 

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the distin- 
guished gentleman from California. 

Mr. COELHO. Mr. Speaker, I thank 
the majority whip. 

The schedule for the rest of the 
afternoon is that we will be happy to 
take unanimous-consent requests or 
anything else, until 3 o'clock. If there 
are no requests, we will recess until 3 
o'clock, and at 3 o'clock we will pass 
the debt limit extension, a debt limit 
extension until September 23. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, if the gen- 
tleman will allow me to reclaim my 
time, we will take some unanimous- 
consent requests and then we are 
going to recess until 3 o'clock? 

Mr. COELHO. Until 3 o'clock. 

Mr. LOTT. At which time there will 
be a vote, and the gentleman is very 
sure we will pass it? 

Mr. COELHO. We will have debate. 

Mr. LOTT. Debate and a vote on a 
short-term extension of the debt ceil- 
ing until September 23? 

Mr. COELHO. If there are problems, 
we will notify the membership. 

Mr. LOTT. By problems, the gentle- 
man means with the other body? 

Mr. COELHO. With the other body, 
and if something comes up that we are 
delayed a half hour or so, we will 
notify the membership prior to 3 
o'clock so they will know. 

Mr. LOTT. I presume on the short- 
term extension, we are talking about 1 
hour of debate? 

Mr. COELHO. One hour. 

Mr. LOTT. So we could expect a vote 
sometime after 3, maybe around 4, is 
that correct? 

Mr. COELHO. Depending on the 
level of debate and the amount of 
debate; it might be sooner. 

Mr. LOTT. As the gentleman was 
saying, of course, we would need to see 
what the Senate does on that exten- 
sion when it goes over there. Although 
I would like to say that whatever we 
do on those terms, I would like to do it 
and send it to them and that is their 
problem. 

Mr. COELHO. The gentleman from 
Mississippi knows my attitude. 



■HH 



23062 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Mr. LOTT. Now, we do have to pass 
a recess resolution at some point, is 
that right? 

Mr. COELHO. Yes. It is important 
that while we might want to make 
some comments about the other body, 
they have to pass a recess resolution 
so we can get out of here, so it is im- 
portant that we do both things. Hope- 
fully we can. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman. 



PHYSICIAN CERTIFICATION CAN 
ASSURE QUALITY OF MEDICAL 
CARE FOR OUR MEDICARE 
BENEFICIARIES 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from California [Mr. Stark] is 
recognized for 5 minutes. 

Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, today I am 
pleased to introduce the Medicare Physician 
Competency Certification Act of 1987. 
Through this bill our Medicare beneficiaries 
can be assured of the quality of medical care 
they receive from their doctors. 

The Medicare Program annually spends 
more than $80 billion to meet the health care 
needs of our elderly citizens. What assur- 
ances do these very vulnerable people have, 
what assurance does the Congress have, that 
the care given is quality medical care? Unfor- 
tunately, there is little assurance that physi- 
cians providing care to our elderly are compe- 
tent and practice using up-to-date knowledge. 

Quality assurance in the Medicare Program 
is delegated to the Professional Review Orga- 
nizations under contract with the Department 
of Health and Human Services. With few ex- 
ceptions, most notably the California Medical 
Review, the PRO's activities focus solely on 
the appropriateness of hospitalization. Last 
year as part of an effort to show an interest in 
quality assurance, the Department released 
Medicare mortality figures for each hospital in 
the Nation. The cacaphony of complaints from 
hospitals virtually paralyzed further efforts to 
study and evaluate quality of care in the Medi- 
care Program. 

Recently the Department has renewed its 
interest in determining the quality of care pro- 
vided to Medicare beneficiaries, both in the 
hospital and in the office setting. However, 
this interest in quality of care came about only 
after congressional pressures and the initi- 
ation of a study by the Government Account- 
ing Office last year. 

The GAO study is titled, "Medicare: Prelimi- 
nary Strategies for Assessing Quality of 
Care." In that study GAO notes that "(w)ithin 
HCFA, there is no formally designated respon- 
sibility or organizational capacity for integrat- 
ing the results of the separate review activities 
or assessing the overall quality of medical 
care." For the billions of dollars ihe Federal 
Government spends each year meeting the 
health care needs of our elderly citizens, there 
are not enough mechanisms to assure us of 
the quality of the care rendered, particularly by 
doctors. 



All hospitals that participate in the Medicare 
Program must have quality assurance pro- 
grams, the majority of which are periodically 
reviewed by the Joint Commission on the Ac- 
creditation of Hospitals. The adequacy of a 
hospital's quality assurance program is prob- 
ably the single most important component in 
the accreditation process. Medical practices 
can likewise become accredited voluntarily 
through a similar process. 

The extent of quality review of a physician's 
practice is limited to hospitalized patients, a 
very small percentage of any practice. Why do 
we avoid the task of promoting quality stand- 
ards for physicians? Do we know what quality 
is? Do we have the tools to measure quality? 

Quality is the most elusive will-o'-the-wisp in 
medical practice. Ask any doctor to describe 
it. After a harangue about the process and 
outcome of care, there is usually a statement 
such as "Quality is hard to describe, but I 
know it when I see it." 

Decades of study in this country and around 
the world have failed to produce universally 
acceptable, easily performed measures of 
quality. However, because we lack the perfect 
or ideal methodology to assess quality of care 
must not prevent us from initiating programs 
that use the best tools currently available. 

Every licensed physician in this country has 
passed a rigorous licensing examination. Un- 
fortunately, at no time during his or her career 
is the physician required to again document 
competence or capability to practice medicine, 
despite a doubling of medical knowledge 
every 7 to 1 years. 

Every physician designated as a specialist 
by one of the major specialty associations has 
passed an additional series of examinations. 
There are approximately 337,000 certified 
medical specialists in the United States. 

By 1986, 12 of the 24 major medical spe- 
cialty associations limited the specialty certifi- 
cation to a specified number of years from the 
initial designation. However, only four special- 
ty certificates were time-limited prior to 1985: 
Family Practice (1969), Emergency Medicine 
(1980), Surgery (1976), and Thoracic Surgery 
(1976). The certifications for the other special- 
ty associations take effect between 1985 and 
1992. 

Internal medicine, the largest of all the spe- 
cialties with more than 60,000 diplomats, have 
yet to adopt a time-limited certification proc- 
ess. 

Whether periodic testing of a physician's 
knowledge is an ideal measure of the quality 
of care he or she renders should not preclude 
the use of this method as one part of a com- 
prehensive, coordinated effort to assure qual- 
ity performance by a doctor. 

Let us more fully use the tools we have 
available to us. We may be in the stone age 
of quality assurance. But as crude, bulky, and 
inadequate as our tools may be, we can do 
more with them than is the current practice. 

The Medicare Physician Competency Certifi- 
cation Act of 1987 uses the tools available to 
us for assuring quality of care in the Medicare 
Program. It builds on the testing procedures li- 
censing boards and specialty societies pres- 
ently use. 

This bill requires time-limited certification for 



all physicians who participate in the Medicare 
Program. The Secretary of Health and Human 
Services would be required to establish crite- 
ria for certification in collaboration with repre- 
sentatives of organizations currently responsi- 
ble for licensing physicians and for the desig- 
nation of medical specialists. Medical special- 
ty societies and State medical boards may 
apply and be qualified to certify physicians 
who participate in the Medicare Program. 

The Secretary would also provide for the 
certification of physicians who do not partici- 
pate in a qualified program. Physicians li- 
censed by a State medical board prior to en- 
actment would have 7 full years to successful- 
ly become certified by a recognized program. 

Only after failure of the examination can a 
physician be barred from participation in the 
Medicare Program. When the physician suc- 
cessfully completes the certification process, 
participation in Medicare is reinstated. 

In addition to these provisions the Secretary 
of Health and Human Services is required to 
develop additional indicators of quality per- 
formance. 

A section-by-section analysis of this bill is 
included at the end of this statement. 

Mr. Speaker, Congress can assure the qual- 
ity of medical care received by Medicare 
beneficiaries. The Medicare Physician Compe- 
tency Certification Act of 1 987 is a bold initia- 
tive that can protect our Nation's elderly. 

Section-by-Section Analysis— Medicare 
Physician Competency Certification Act 
of 1987 

The bill provides that the Act may be 
cited as the "Medicare Physician Competen- 
cy Certification Act of 1987" and adds a new 
section to Part B of Title XVIII. 

SECTION 1. physician competency 
certification program 

a. Requirement for Competency Certifica- 
tion.— To receive payment for services under 
Part B of Medicare a physician must take 
and pass a written examination. This exami- 
nation may be taken at any time during the 
previous 7 years. 

b. Examination Standards.— The Secre- 
tary, in consultation with organizations that 
license and certify physicians, shall estab- 
lish examination standards that assess the 
knowledge necessary for the practice of 
medicine by a competent physician. 

c. Written Examinations.— Medical spe- 
cialty societies or state medical boards may 
be recognized by the Secretary as qualified 
programs. A program is qualified if the Sec- 
retary determines that the examinations 
given by an organization meets the estab- 
lished standards. The examinations must be 
offered at least annually. The Secretary is 
also required to provide for an approved ex- 
amination for physicians who do not partici- 
pate in a qualified program. Written exami- 
nations offered by organizations prior to the 
date the standards are established may be 
recognized by the Secretary as an approved 
examination. 

d. Enforcement.— Except in the case of 
emergencies, an uncertified physician must 
inform Medicare beneficiaries in advance 
that no Medicare payment will be made for 
services provided by the physician. Further- 
more, the physician may not charge for the 
service unless the beneficiary agrees in ad- 



August 7, 1987 CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 23063 

vance and in writing to pay for the service ported components in these units will repre- cars such as the Volkswagen Bug, nobody 

and the physician must refund any money se nt more than 1 million additional imported paid much attention. When the Japanese 

collected for services rendered during the ver ,j c les. started exporting to the United States, there 

time the physician was not certified. Viola- |n Qrder tQ comp | ete the story we must also still was little concern. Then came the oil em- 

tions are subject to civil Penalties. include what has been termed the invisible bargo, and the American gas guzzler was in 

e. Effective Dates.— The examination .. » • » » 

standards must be established within one 'mport. Hidden under the hoods of the all deep trouble. 

year of enactment. Specialty societies and American car is a growing percentage of parts Very quickly, American consumers came to 

state medical boards may apply for recogni- sourced by foreign-owned suppliers. General appreciate the features of foreign car imports 

tion as qualified programs within 18 months Motors imported 800,000 engines in 1986, other than fuel economy; and very quickly it 

of enactment. The examination provided by wnj | e tne company's domestic engine produc- became apparent that the American automo- 

the Secretary must be available by January tJQn dropped from 6 6 mi || ion in 1985 t0 5.7 bj|e industry was not pre pared to compete. 

1st of the third year alter enactment. mj||Jon |ajjt year By lgg0 these jmports are when Japanese j mports reached 2 million 

section 2. study of other indicators expected to rise to 20 percent or more of vehicles in 1980, political pressure began to 

The Secretary is to study and report to each domes tic car, effectively making one of mou nt, and a voluntary restraint agreement 

^!rnUhPH r h ?itl f a t 0rS everv ,ive cars an invisible im P° rt - Addin 9 the [VRA] was imposed to limit Japanese imports 

care iurnisnea D y pnysicians. import content of Japanese transplants to visi- to 1.7 million vehicles a year. By 1985, the 

■ ble and invisible imports, the imported value formal VRA was removed but the Japanese 

Th* ^va-kwr nro tPmnnrP TTnrier of the United StateS Car market by 1 "° W '" have continued to restrict their exports to the 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under be more than 60 perce nt. United States because the cartelization of the 

a previous order of the House the gen- |n sum the profj|e for , 990 new car sales in Amer|can market suited thejr purposes . 

tleman from New York [Mr. LaFalce] Amerjca wj|| probab|y |ook something nke the , n fact> Ameri can car makers-particularly 

is recognized for 5 minutes fo||owj Qe Motors _ we re happy to see the VRA 

^ '■ J * ■ L tn thl' S ZS,S in Imported finished vehicles: Millions die because this allowed for a substantial in- 

ca attention to the American automotive in- T , n ,.... o ■» .. . . , . . , 

dustry and the continuing pressure of foreign ^Japanese ZZZ H CreaSe !" ca P^ e ' m P° rts - made < or h ' re b * 

competition that threatens the future of that "SS^BSSZZIiZZI 5 companies ,n which U.S. car firms bought sub- 
industry with its millions of good American Vehicle Equivalent of Imported stantial equity holdings, to be sold under 
I b Components: American nameplates. Over the past 3 years, 

In' the new world of international competi- ?» transplant operations 1.2 the Big Three have moved on to South Korea 

tion, attention is shifting from the location of m Big 3 domestic production L6 Mex ico, Taiwan, Brazil and elsewhere with 

final assembly to the more important issue of import content of U.S. market 6.8 sim,lar arrangements. 

who made the individual components placed Projected total sales in 1990 11.3 AUT0 PABTS transplants 

under the hood of a car, under the plastic Note -import percentage of u.s. Market-eo.2 As DetroJt deve| d jts new survjval strate . 

cover of a computer, or behind the television percent. gy , based on reducing American capacity and 

ca l n 9- A . . The 2-m,ll,on-car excess capacity in the do- ^ creasj outsourcing, the Japanese moved 

The chilling fact is that the American auto- mestic auto market will almost inevitably result thg ne y xt e Qf * hejr |an _ t0 transplant 
mobile market, a few years ago only infiltrated in a new round of plant closings and job dis- Ja se vehicle assem bly operations onto 
by foreign imports, is now about to be domi- placement. Under these conditions, it is not (J g soJ| Thjg second phase was designed to 
nated by imports. Record profits for the Big surprising that the major concern of the skjrt the political thicket of quotas and the pe- 
Three U.S. auto companies over the past 2 United Auto Workers union in , current negotia- repnja| domestjc content debate Near| every 
years have obscured the harsh reality that by tions with General Motors and Ford is job se- d carmaker-Toyota, Nissan, Honda, 
1990, a majority of the components in auto- curity. In fact I believe their real concern is ^ Mitsubishi, Subaru, Isuzu and Suzuki- 
mobiles sold in the United States will not be the continued vitality of auto production in has (he M Qf those transp | antjng some 
made in America. The math is simple and America, since it appears that the strategy of assemb | v t0 the United States 
alarming: the Big Three is to increase profits while re- y ' ^^ 

Currently, Japan exports 2.3 million cars an- ducing domestic production and employment. 0n the face of ll - th,s should be good news 
nually to the United States, and European and Mr. Speaker, unless we fashion an industrial for us - P arts suppliers. In theory, the trans- 
other countries provide 870,000 cars to our strategy to preserve a healthy domestic auto P lants should replace some Japanese car im- 
market. In addition, foreign car exports for industry, including parts production, we face Ports and provide more business for American 
sale under American name plates, such as the the wholesale export of our industry earnings, component producers. But in most cases Jap- 
Dodge Colt or Chevrolet Spectrum, contribut- jobs and technology not only to Japan and anese assemblers are encouraging their do- 
ed another 260,000 in so-called captive im- Germany, but also to Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, mestic suppliers to follow them into the United 
ports. Therefore, imports of one kind or an- Mexico, and other countries. It has been esti- States instead of shopping for United States 
other currently total almost 3.5 million cars, or mated that by 1990 restructuring of the auto products. Eighty percent of the value of Japa- 
31 percent of the U.S. market of 11 million. industry could cost an additional 400,000 nese assembled cars in the United States still 

By 1990, American companies plan to American auto making and supplier jobs. is composed of foreign-made parts. In fact, 

double the number of captive imports to over How did we get into this crisis situation, and what we apparently have is the cozy keiretsu 

500,000, while new entrants into the United what policies will help us get out of it? relationship, with tight assembler-supplier ver- 

States market-from Korea, Taiwan, Yugo- getting into trouble tical integration transplanted to the United 

slavia, and Spain— expect to increase their ex- For most f this century, automobile produc- sta,es - 

ports. Therefore, U.S. imports will reach an tj 0n bas bee n the quintessential American in- Matsushita, Nihon Radiator, Sumitomo Elec- 

estimated 4 million cars in 1990. dustry. From the time of the Model T through trie, Mitsubishi Belting, Yorozu Motor, and 

But that is only part of the story. Increasing- world War II and into the late 1960s, GM, Tokai Rubber have in the past year joined the 
ly we must take into account foreign auto p ord and Chrysler dominated the American growing list of Japanese auto parts firms set- 
components that are assembled into new cars market, and set the standard for the world. ting up plants or joint ventures in the United 
in the United States. In 1986, approximately Or so we thought. In retrospect, we were States. What began as a trickle threatens to 
465 000 cars were produced by three trans- actually involved in an era of effortless superi- become a flood which could replace a large 
plant Japanese assembly plants in the United ority, particularly after World War II when our part of our existing domestic auto parts indus- 
States, using 80 percent Japanese compo- competitors were busy trying to get back on try. According to the United States Embassy 
nents. Transplant operations in the United their feet. Meanwhile, we let our productivity, m Tokyo, up to 300 Japanese parts compa- 
States will have the capacity to assemble 1.7 innovation and quality standards slip. When nies are planning to form American subsidiar- 
million vehicles by 1990. The value of the im- foreign competition first started with small ies - 









HH 



23064 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



When this process is complete, these Japa- 
nese suppliers will compete with U.S. parts 
makers for the U.S. aftermarket, while ex- 
panding their already extensive supply of com- 
ponents to the Big Three. The only positive 
feature of this plan is that American workers 
will presumably produce the parts that now 
are imported from Japan. But, we will see. 

FOREIGN TRADE ZONES 

The crisis in our auto industry is compound- 
ed by increasing use of Foreign Trade Zone 
status by Japanese vehicle assemblers in the 
United States. Foreign Trade Zones were cre- 
ated in 1934 by an Act of Congress to "en- 
courage and revive the foreign trade of the 
United States." Opposition to FTZ's was 
based primarily on arguments that they would 
promote imports to the detriment of American 
manufactureres. Step by step, the original 
intent of FTZ's has been whittled away, from 
one of export promotion to import penetration. 

Today, a company with FTZ status can 
import a good, manufacture it into a finished 
product, and sell the product in the domestic 
market while paving a substantially lower duty 
than if the product had been imported directly. 
In addition, duties are not paid on the good 
until it leaves the zone. Even though Foreign 
Trade Zones were intended to create employ- 
ment and exports, at present over 80 percent 
of goods being imported into FTZ's are used 
in domestic commerce. Virtually every auto 
assembly plant owned by GM, Ford, and 
Chrysler has been designated a Foreign Trade 
Zone in the past 4 years. Auto parts account- 
ed for three-quarters of the more than $7 bil- 
lion in parts that flowed through the zones last 
year. 

While the effect of existing zone practice is 
to provide economic benefits to zone manu- 
facturers and the local area — and in some in- 
dustries to provide jobs that otherwise would 
not exist — the net effect of such practices is a 
loss of tariff protection to domestic suppliers. 
Through the misuse of the trade zone princi- 
ples, the various tariff acts of Congress are ef- 
fectively repealed. Review and reform of the 
operation of Foreign Trade Zones should be a 
high priority. 

MAQUILADORA MADNESS 

One aspect of the increase in outsourcing 
of components by American auto companies 
has been a particular concern of mine. Ac- 
cording to a recent newspaper report, General 
Motors is expected to open 12 new maquila- 
doras, or twin-plants, in Mexico in 1987, 
making a total of 29 GM twin-plants in that 
country. This investment in Mexico, where the 
average wage is less than $1 an hour, will 
occur while GM closes 1 1 of its plants in the 
Midwest and lays off 29,000 American work- 
ers. 

I am especially concerned about the reloca- 
tion of automotive facilities to Mexico because 
a major employer in my district, Trico Products 
Corp., the auto industry's largest domestic 
supplier of original windshield wiper assem- 
blies, has begun to transfer half of its manu- 
facturing operations to Matamoros, Mexico. I 
have been told that this decision will cost 
1,200 jobs at the Buffalo plant, over $31 mil- 
lion in direct wages, and an estimated $95 
million in indirect employment next year alone. 
This is not the kind of future we want for our 
manufacturing workers or our economy. It is 



not the kind of future we want <or their com- 
munities which will feel the consequences of 
their loss of income. 

URGENT NEED FOR AN AMERICAN AUTO POLICY 

Mr. Speaker, without a healthy domestic 
auto parts industry, the auto industry is merely 
a hollow shell lacking an essential building 
block of industrial dynamism. Every other auto 
producing country in the world realizes this 
fact and thus restricts auto imports through 
content laws, restraint agreements, and other 
nontariff barriers. I do not like that situation, 
but it is an unfortunate and inescapable fact 
of life that we must acknowledge and deal 
with. 

While we are pursuing an essentially open 
door policy in the automotive industry, every 
major European country limits Japanese auto 
imports. England and Germany both impose a 
10.8-percent tariff, and have restraint agree- 
ments limiting Japanese imports to between 
10 and 12 percent of their markets. Italy im- 
poses an 1 1 -percent tariff and restricts Japa- 
nese autos to 2,200 annually, which is less 
than 1 percent of their market. France im- 
poses a 10.8-percent tariff and restricts Japa- 
nese autos to less than 3 percent of the 
market. 

I have long been concerned by the disparity 
between the policies of other auto-producing 
countries toward auto imports and those of 
our own country. It is a situation that seems to 
guarantee that the United States will be the 
target for autos produced all over the world. If 
foreign car producers cannot sell their cars in 
Europe, or Asia, or Latin America, where else 
will they try to sell them but in the wide open 
American market? 

I believe there is an alternative strategy. 
There is plenty of evidence that high quality, 
affordable vehicles can be built in the United 
States using U.S. design, labor, and parts. 
GM's own Cavalier, Pontiac 6000 and Ford's 
new Taurus/Sable line prove that U.S. firms 
can not only manufacture, but also design a 
vehicle that captures the interest of the Ameri- 
can car buyer. 

Therefore, I intend to address the problems 
of our automotive industry from two directions. 
Today I will introduce legislation which will 
provide incentives to keep existing U.S. pro- 
ducers from buying more original equipment 
from abroad and to keep outsourcing to a 
minimum. This bill would require 80 percent of 
the value-added in vehicles assembled in this 
country to be of U.S. origin in order to enjoy 
Foreign Trade Zone tariff benefits. Foreign 
transplant vehicles assembled in a Foreign 
Trade Zone would be included in any volun- 
tary restraint quota on car imports into the 
United States. 

Because of my concern for continued plant 
closings and oursourcing of manufacturing 
production to Mexico, I am also introducing 
two bills concerning Mexico's twin-plant pro- 
gram. The first would repeal the tax break 
which encourages American firms to relocate 
in low-wage countries. Item 807 of the Tariff 
Code allows American companies to export 
components or parts of products abroad for 
assembly and to reimport the finished product 
duty-free except for foreign value-added. 
When this provision was codified in 1963, 
Congress was told that the purpose was to 
assure U.S. production and to maintain U.S. 



jobs, as expanded trade would build the 
United States and world markets, but U.S. ex- 
ports have not been aided by item 807, be- 
cause there are no real exports under this 
provision. 

In actual practice, item 807 has worked in 
two ways to eliminate U.S. jobs. In the first 
step, U.S. -made components are shipped to 
low-wage countries where the product is as- 
sembled and the value-added is the low labor 
cost. In these instances there is a high job 
loss to America. The second step in the 807 
evolution is for companies to follow up assem- 
bly abroad by the step-by-step transfer of 
parts production abroad. The result is the U.S. 
component input diminshes, often to zero. In 
these instances, job losses have been mas- 
sive. The continued operation of item 807 
would simply bolster the job losses — at tax- 
payer expense— that continue to help industry 
flee the country and erode the Nation's indus- 
trial base. 

The second bill concerning offshore assem- 
bly would place an immediate and permanent 
prohibition on the use of Federal Government 
funds for supporting projects and publishing 
materials designed to attract American firms 
to relocate outside the United States. I am 
concerned that the trade conference spon- 
sored in Mexico last year by the Department 
of Commerce— Expo Maquila 1986— is but 
one example of such a project, and we have 
no business using taxpayer money to lure 
American firms abroad. 

If American companies continue to pursue 
their current course of outsourcing and re- 
duced commitment to U.S. production and if 
our government fails to enact rational trade 
policies, many more dislocations are to come. 
Yet there is ample evidence that U.S. compa- 
nies can manufacture high quality products in 
existing vehicle and parts plants using Ameri- 
can labor. There is also evidence from the 
trade policies of our competitors that a coun- 
try can manage its trade in a way which en- 
courages the growth and vitality of its key in- 
dustries without causing massive, uncontrolled 
dislocation for workers and communities. 

For the past 5 years I have urged the 
Reagan administration to adopt policies which 
would assist our manufacturing industries to 
compete in the new global marketplace. How- 
ever, the administration has been unrespon- 
sive to the deindustrialization of America. Until 
we are willing and able to fashion a compre- 
hensive industrial strategy for America's stra- 
tegic industries, we must preserve the domes- 
tic jobs and productive capacity which now 
exist. 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from Kansas [Mr. Slattery] is 
recognized for 5 minutes. 

[Mr. SLATTERY addressed the 
House. His remarks will appear hereaf- 
ter in the Extensions of Remarks.] 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from Michigan [Mr. Bonior] is 
recognized for 60 minutes. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23065 



[Mr. BONIOR of Michigan ad- 
dressed the House. His remarks will 
appear hereafter in the Extensions of 
Remarks.] 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tlewoman from Maryland [Mrs. Bent- 
ley] is recognized for 60 minutes. 

[Mrs. BENTLEY addressed the 
House. Her remarks will appear here- 
after in the Extensions of Remarks.] 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from Massachusetts [Mr. 
Frank] is recognized for 60 minutes. 

[Mr. FRANK addressed the House. 
His remarks will appear hereafter in 
the Extensions of Remarks.] 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from New York [Mr. Dio- 
Guardi] is recognized for 60 minutes. 

[Mr. DioGUARDI addressed the 
House. His remarks will appear hereaf- 
ter in the Extensions of Remarks.] 



METRO COMPACT AMENDMENTS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from Virginia [Mr. Boucher] is 
recognized for 10 minutes. 

Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am introduc- 
ing today on behalf of myself and Representa- 
tives Cardin, Wolf, Hoyer, Parris, McMil- 
len, Morella, Sisisky, and Fauntroy legis- 
lation to implement amendments to the Wash- 
ington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's 
[WMATA] interstate compact. These amend- 
ments, which have been approved by Virginia, 
Maryland, and the District of Columbia, repre- 
sent a regional consensus on modifications 
that should be made to WMATA's Interstate 
Compact in order to allow the Transit Author- 
ity to conduct its everyday activities in a more 
efficient, safe, and cost-effective manner. 

The bill implements four amendments to the 
WMATA compact concerning public hearing 
requirements for minor, experimental and 
emergency service changes, improvements in 
public safety, WMATA's financial investment 
flexibility, and Metro's procurement require- 
ments. 

With respect to public hearing requirements, 
the amendment permits WMATA to make 
minor or experimental service changes and to 
provide for emergency situations without first 
holding a public hearing. With this change, 
Metro can begin to provide service on an ex- 
perimental basis as soon as demand for new 
service is identified without waiting for the 
entire public hearing process to be completed. 
This modification will enable Metro to more ef- 
ficiently sample and serve new transit mar- 
kets. In all cases, a public hearing would be 
held prior to instituting a permanent service 
change. In addition, WMATA wouid be re- 
quired to hold a public hearing at the request 
of a local jurisdiction. 

The public safety amendment expands the 
Metro Transit Police's jurisdiction to include 



Metrobus stops. Currently, the Metro police ju- 
risdiction is limited to property owned by 
WMATA. The Transit Police have no official 
authority to interfere with criminal acts at its 
bus stops, and therefore cannot adequately 
protect patrons and Metro employees. A uni- 
formed Metro police officer who may witness 
a crime near a bus stop does not have the au- 
thority to act. The local police departments in 
Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Colum- 
bia all support giving the Metro Transit Police 
jurisdiction at its bus stops. 

With the advent of banking deregulation, 
WMATA also needs the flexibility to invest in a 
broader range of financial instruments and to 
deposit funds in a branch or subsidiary of any 
bank which has operations in the transit zone. 
Presently, WMATA's funds may only be de- 
posited in State or national banks located in 
the transit zone. WMATA's investments are 
limited to bonds or other obligations of the 
United States, Maryland, Virginia, or their sub- 
divisions This amendment enables WMATA 
to engage in more efficient cash management 
practices. 

Finally, the procurement amendment would 
increase the dollar threshold for advertising of 
contracts from $2,500 to $10,000 for the pur- 
chase of supplies and equipment, and from 
$10,000 to $25,000 for construction, recon- 
struction, or improvement of any facility. The 
current dollar limits were established in 1966 
prior to the decade of high inflation, which 
dramatically changed the bidding climate. The 
Federal Government long ago recognized this 
situation and raised its limits requiring adver- 
tising to contracts above $25,000. The higher 
thresholds will bring WMATA more in line with 
not only the Federal Government, but also 
with other transit agencies and many local 
governments in the region. Raising the thresh- 
olds will increase WMATA procurement effi- 
ciency and reduce administrative staff time 
and costs. 

Mr. Speaker, these amendments address 
routine, daily administrative and management 
activities of the Transit Authority. Once en- 
acted, the new compact provisions will enable 
Metro to enhance the safety and efficiency of 
Metrorail and Metrobus operations and im- 
prove service to its ridership in Virginia, Mary- 
land, the District of Columbia, and all who visit 
the National Capital Region. 

The resolution and a summary of the reso- 
lution follow: 

H.J. Res. 352 
Joint resolution granting the consent and 

approval of Congress for the State of 

Maryls.nd, the Commonwealth of Virginia, 

and the District of Columbia to amend the 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 

Regulation Compact 

Whereas the State of Maryland, the Com- 
monwealth of Virginia and the District of 
Columbia have adopted amendments to the 
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Regulation Compact relating to public hear- 
ing requirements, investment flexibility, 
procurement and public safety; and 

Whereas the Congress has reviewed such 
amendments and is willing to consent to 
such amendments: Now, therefore, be it 

Resolved by the Senate and House of Rep- 
resentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That consent of 
Congress is hereby given to the amend- 
ments of the State of Maryland (Chapters 



674 and 675, 1984 Acts of the Maryland 
General Assembly), the amendments of the 
Commonwealth of Virginia (Chapter 610, 
1984 Acts of Assembly of Virginia and Chap- 
ter 112, 1987 Acts of Assembly of Virginia) 
and the amendments of the District of Co- 
lumbia (D.C. Law 5-122) to sections 62(a), 
69(a), 69(b), 73 and 76(a) of the Washington 
Metropolitan Area Transit Regulation Com- 
pact. Such amendments are as follows: 

"62(a) The Board shall not make or 
change any fare or rate, nor establish or 
abandon any service except after holding a 
public hearing with respect thereto, except 
for service changes required by an emergen- 
cy; minor service changes as defined by reg- 
ulations promulgated by the Board; experi- 
mental service established to test the effect 
of such service, and in effect for not more 
than six months; and fare and service 
changes established for special events. 

"69(a) The Board may provide for the cre- 
ation and administration of such funds as 
may be required. The funds shall be dis- 
bursed in accordance with rules established 
by the Board and all payments from any 
fund shall be reported to the Board. Moneys 
in such funds and other moneys of the Au- 
thority shall be deposited, as directed by the 
Board, in any branch or subsidiary of any 
state or national bank which has operations 
within the Zone, and having a total paid-in 
capital of at least one million dollars 
($1,000,000). The trust department of any 
such state or national bank may be desig- 
nated as a depositary to receive any securi- 
ties acquired or owned by the Authority. 
The restriction with respect to paid-in cap- 
ital may be waived for any such bank which 
agrees to pledge federal securities to protect 
the funds and securities of the Authority in 
such amounts and pursuant to such ar- 
rangements as may be acceptable to the 
Board. 

"69(b) Any moneys of the Authority may, 
in the discretion of the Board and subject to 
any agreement or covenant between the Au- 
thority and the holders of any of its obliga- 
tions limiting or restricting classes of invest- 
ments, be invested in: 

"(1) Direct obligations of or obligations 
guaranteed by the United States of Amer- 
ica; 

"(2) Bonds, debentures, notes or other evi- 
dences of indebtedness issued by agencies of 
the United States of America, including but 
not limited to the following: Bank for Coop- 
eratives; Federal Intermediate Credit 
Banks; Federal Home Loan Bank System; 
Export-Import Bank of the United States; 
Federal Land Banks; Federal National Mort- 
gage Association; Student Loan Marketing 
Association; Government National Mort- 
gage Association; Tennessee Valley Author- 
ity; or United States Postal Service; 

"(3) Securities that qualify as lawful in- 
vestments and may be accepted as security 
for fiduciary, trust and public funds under 
the control of the United States or any offi- 
cer or officers thereof, or securities eligible 
as collateral for deposits of moneys of the 
United States, including United States 
Treasury tax and loan accounts; 

"(4) Domestic and Eurodollar certificates 
of deposit; and 

"(5) Bonds, debentures, notes or other evi- 
dences of indebtedness issued by a domestic 
corporation, such as a corporation organized 
under the laws of one of the States of the 
United States, provided that such obliga- 
tions are nonconvertible and at the time of 
their purchase are rated in the highest 
rating categories by a nationally recognized 
bond rating agency. 









23066 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



"73 Contracts for the construction, recon- 
struction or improvement of any facility 
when the expenditure required exceeds 
twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) and 
contracts for the purchase of supplies, 
equipment and materials when the expendi- 
ture required exceeds ten thousand dollars 
($10,000) shall be advertised and let upon 
sealed bids to the lowest responsible bidder. 
Notice requesting such bids shall be pub- 
lished in a manner reasonably likely to at- 
tract prospective bidders, which publication 
shall be made at least ten days before bids 
are received and in at least two newspapers 
of general circulation in the Zone. The 
Board may reject any and all bids and read- 
vertise in its discretion. If after rejecting 
bids the Board determines and resolves 
that, in its opinion, the supplies, equipment 
and materials may be purchased at a lower 
price in the open market, the Board may 
give each responsible bidder an opportunity 
to negotiate a price and may proceed to pur- 
chase the supplies, equipment and materials 
in the open market at a negotiated price 
which is lower than the lowest rejected bid 
of a responsible bidder, without further ob- 
servance (.f the provisions requiring bids or 
notice. The Board shall adopt rules and reg- 
ulations to provide for purchasing from the 
lowest responsible bidder when sealed bids, 
notice and publication are not required by 
this section. The Board may suspend and 
waive the provisions of this section requir- 
ing competitive bids whenever: 

"(a) the purchase is to be made from or 
the contract is to be made with the federal 
or any State government or any agency or 
political subdivision thereof or pursuant to 
any open-end bulk-purchase contract of any 
of them; 

"(b) the public exigency requires the im- 
mediate delivery of the articles; 

"(c) only one source of supply is available; 
or 

"(d) the equipment to be purchased is of a 
technical nature and the procurement 
thereof without advertising is necessary in 
order to assure standardization of equip- 
ment and interchangeability of parts in the 
public interest. 

"76 (a) The Authority is authorized to es- 
tablish and maintain a regular police force, 
to be known as the Metro Transit Police, to 
provide protection for its patrons, person- 
nel, and transit facilities. The Metro Transit 
Police shall have the powers and duties and 
shall be subject to the limitations set forth 
in this section. It shall be composed of both 
uniformed and plainclothes personnel and 
shall be charged with the duty of enforcing 
the laws of the signatories, and the laws, or- 
dinances and regulations of the political 
subdivisions thereof in the Transit Zone, 
and the rules and regulations of the Author- 
ity. The jurisdiction of the Metro Transit 
Police shall be limited to all the transit fa- 
cilities (including bus stops) owned, con- 
trolled or operated by the Authority, but 
this restriction shall not limit the power of 
the Metro Transit Police to make arrests in 
the Transit Zone for violations committed 
upon, to or against such transit facilities 
committed from within or outside such tran- 
sit facilities, while in hot or close pursuit or 
to execute traffic citations and criminal 
process in accordance with subsection (c) 
below. The members of the Metro Transit 
Police shall have concurrent jurisdiction in 
the performance of their duties with the 
duly constituted law enforcement agencies 
of the signatories and of the political subdi- 
visions thereof in which any transit facility 
of the Authority is located or in which the 



Authority operates any transit service. 
Nothing contained in this section shall 
either relieve any signatory or political sub- 
division or agency thereof from its duty to 
provide police, fire and other public safety 
service and protection, or limit, restrict or 
interfere with the jurisdiction of or the per- 
formance of duties by the existing police, 
fire and other public safety agencies. For 
purposes of this section, "bus stop" means 
that area within 150 feet of a metrobus bus 
stop sign, excluding the interior of any 
building not owned, controlled, or operated 
by the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority.". 

Sec. 2. The right of Congress to alter, 
amend, or repeal this joint resolution is 
hereby expressly reserved. 

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit 
Authority Compact Technical Amend- 
ments Fact Sheet 

public hearings 
Section 62(a)— This amendment provides 
that minor service changes, experimental 
service and emergency situations do not re- 
quire a public hearing. The amendment 
clarifies current language, negates any po- 
tential challenges to current practices and 
reflects UMTA public hearing requirements. 

PUBLIC SAFETY 

Section 76(a)— This amendment gives 
Metro police jurisdiction at Metrobus bus 
stops. Currently, local police have jurisdic- 
tion at bus stops. This change allows Metro 
police to provide protection for transit pa- 
trons at bus stops, thus increasing patron 
protection and safety. 

INVESTMENT FLEXIBILITY 

Section 69(a) — This amendment allows 
WMATA to deposit funds in a branch or 
subsidiary of any bank which has operations 
within the Transit Zone. The change per- 
mits WMATA to take advantage of the 
greater flexibility in the banking industry 
as a result of deregulation. 

Section 69(b)— This amendment permits 
WMATA to invest in a broader range of in- 
vestments of the U.S. Government and its 
agencies and to invest in non-convertable in- 
struments of a domestic corporation that 
carries the highest rating by an established 
bond rating agency. The amendment allows 
WMATA to gain a higher rate of return on 
investments and reduce payments for cap- 
ital items and bond repayment. The expand- 
ed range of investments involves no greater 
risk than that assumed by the jurisdictions 
on their own investments. 

PROCUREMENT 

Section 73— This amendment raises the 
threshold for advertising contracts for sup- 
plies and equipment from $2,500 to $10,000 
and for construction and reconstruction 
from $10,000 to $25,000. Updating the 
thresholds will increase procurement effi- 
ciency and reduce staff time and associated 
costs. The new thresholds will also make 
WMATA procurement policies more consist- 
ent with the Federal government, other 
transit properties and many local govern- 
ments. 



FARM PROGRAM PROMPT 
PAYMENT ACT 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from Oklahoma [Mr. English] 
is recognized for 60 minutes. 



Mr. ENGLISH. Mr. Speaker, today I 
am introducing the Farm Program 
Prompt Payment Act. The purpose of 
this bill is to give this Nation's food 
and fiber producers the same protec- 
tion against slow payment enjoyed by 
other persons who sign contracts with 
the Government. In the past, the De- 
partment of Agriculture has been free 
to make payments and commodity 
loans at its own discretion. 

These payments and loans are made 
through the Commodity Credit Corpo- 
ration, a wholly owned Government 
corporation chartered by the Congress 
to finance farm programs assigned by 
law to the Department of Agriculture. 
CCC has authority to borrow up to $25 
billion from the U.S. Treasury, and 
the Congress appropriates sums to 
repay the Treasury for losses in the 
CCC operation. In the past 2 years, 
CCC has reached its borrowing limit 
and shut down operations until appro- 
priations bills have been enacted. 

This year, CCC shut down on May 1 
and resumed operations on July 13. 
During that 2Vz months, wheat har- 
vest began and possibly half the crop 
became eligible for loans. Farmers 
were faced with a no-win choice: They 
could wait and stall their creditors or 
they could sell their grain on a de- 
pressed market sometimes as much as 
30 cents a bushel below the loan level 
in my home State. 

When farmers complained that they 
had to pay interest to the Government 
if they were late in paying taxes, the 
Department of Agriculture claimed 
that it did not bear any responsibility 
because it had no money. Some farm- 
ers were told that the blame rested 
with the Congress because the appro- 
priations bill was not enacted. The 
House of Representatives could claim 
that the blame lay with the Senate be- 
cause the House had acted in a timely 
manner but the Senate had not. 

But farmers rightly complained that 
their contract was with the U.S. Gov- 
ernment, and payment should be made 
in a timely manner or interest should 
accrue. 

The bill I am introducing today 
amends the Prompt Payment Act to 
correct that situation for the future. It 
recognizes that the binding contract 
between farmers and the Government 
creates an obligation by the Govern- 
ment to pay promptly or else include 
interest on the money due the farmer 
when payment is finally made. 

The dates when farmers become eli- 
gible for program benefits are often 
dependent on the date of harvest of a 
crop, thus the binding contracts they 
sign do not include a specific date 
when payments and loans are due. 
This bill establishes those due dates, 
taking into consideration the varying 
harvest times across the Nation. The 
dates established by the bill allow 
ample time for the Department of Ag- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23067 



riculture to make timely payments 
during normal operating periods. The 
Government would have to make in- 
terest payments only when it had not 
acted to keep CCC in operation or 
when bureaucratic snarls held pay- 
ments up. 

This bill gives prompt payment pro- 
tection to the producers who make us 
the best fed nation in the world. I urge 
its favorable consideration by the 
House. 



□ 1315 

NATIONAL QUALITY 
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1987 

Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- 
mous consent to take from the Speak- 
er's table the bill (H.R. 812) to amend 
the Stevenson-Wydler Technology In- 
novation Act of 1980 to establish a Na- 
tional Quality Award, with the objec- 
tive of encouraging American business 
and other organizations to practice ef- 
fective quality control in the provision 
of their goods and services, with 
Senate amendments thereto, and 
concur in the Senate amendments. 

The Clerk read the title of the bill. 

The Clerk read the Senate amend- 
ments, as follows: 

Strike out all after the enacting clause 
and insert: 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Malcolm 
Baldrige National Quality Improvement Act 
of 1987". 

SEC. 2. FINDINGS AND PURPOSES. 

(a) Findings.— The Congress finds and de- 
clares that— 

(1) the leadership of the United States in 
product and process quality has been chal- 
lenged strongly (and sometimes successful- 
ly) by foreign competition, and our Nation's 
productivity growth has improved less than 
our competitors over the last two decades; 

(2) American business and industry are be- 
ginning to understand that poor quality 
costs companies as much as 20 percent of 
sales revenues nationally, and that im- 
proved quality of goods and services goes 
hand in hand with improved productivity, 
lower costs, and increased profitability; 

(3) strategic planning for quality and qual- 
ity improvement programs, through a com- 
mitment to excellence in manufacturing and 
services, are becoming more and more essen- 
tial to the well-being of our Nation's econo- 
my and our ability to compete effectively in 
the global marketplace; 

(4) improved management understanding 
of the factory floor, worker involvement in 
quality, and greater emphasis on statistical 
process control can lead to dramatic im- 
provements in the cost and quality of manu- 
factured products; 

(5) the concept of quality improvement is 
directly applicable to small companies as 
well as large, to service industries as well as 
manufacturing, and to the public sector as 
well as private enterprise; 

(6) in order to be successful, quality im- 
provement programs must be management- 
led and customer-oriented and this may re- 
quire fundamental changes in the way com- 
panies and agencies do business; 

(7) several major industrial nations have 
successfully coupled rigorous private sector 



quality audits with national awards giving 
special recognition to those enterprises the 
audits identify as the very best; and 

(8) a national quality award program of 
this kind in the United States would help 
improve quality and productivity by— 

(A) helping to stimulate American compa- 
nies to improve quality and productivity for 
the pride of recognition while obtaining a 
competitive edge through increased profits, 

(B) recognizing the achievements of those 
companies which improve the quality of 
their goods and services and providing an 
example in others, 

(C) establishing guidelines and criteria 
that can be used by business, industrial, gov- 
ernmental, and other organizations in evalu- 
ating their own quality improvement ef- 
forts, and 

(D) providing specific guidance for other 
American organizations that wish to learn 
how to manage for high quality by making 
available detailed information on how win- 
ning organizations were able to change their 
cultures and achieve eminence. 

(b) Purpose. — It is the purpose of this Act 
to provide for the establishment and con- 
duct of a national quality improvement pro- 
gram under which (1) awards are given to 
selected companies and other organizations 
in the United States that practice effective 
quality management and as a result make 
significant improvements in the quality of 
their goods and services, and (2) informa- 
tion is disseminated about the successful 
strategies and programs. 

SEC. 3. ESTABLISHMENT OF THE MALCOLM BAL- 
DRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY AWARD 
PROGRAM. 

(a) In General.— The Stevenson-Wydler 
Technology Innovation Act of 1980 (15 
U.S.C. 3701 et seq.) is amended by redesig- 
nating sections 16, 17, and 18 as sections 17, 
18, and 19, respectively, and by inserting 
after section 15 the following new section: 

"SEC 16. MALCOLM BALDRIGE NATIONAL QUALITY 
AWARD. 

"(a) Establishment.— There is hereby es- 
tablished the Malcolm Baldrige National 
Quality Award, which shall be evidenced by 
a medal bearing the inscriptions 'Malcolm 
Baldrige National Quality Award' and 'The 
Quest for Excellence'. The medal shall be of 
such design and materials and bear such ad- 
ditional inscriptions as the Secretary may 
prescribe. 

"(b) Making and Presentation of 
Award.— (1) The President (on the basis of 
recommendations received from the Secre- 
tary), or the Secretary, shall periodically 
make the award to companies and other or- 
ganizations which in the judgment of the 
President or the Secretary have substantial- 
ly benefited the economic or social well- 
being of the United States through improve- 
ments in the quality of their goods or serv- 
ices resulting from the effective practice of 
quality management, and which as a conse- 
quence are deserving of special recognition. 

"(2) The presentation of the award shall 
be made by the President or the Secretary 
with such ceremonies as the President or 
the Secretary may deem proper. 

"(3) An organization to which an award is 
made under this section, and which agrees 
to help other American organizations im- 
prove their quality management, may publi- 
cize its receipt of such award and use the 
award in its advertising, but it shall be ineli- 
gible to receive another such award in the 
same category for a period of 5 years. 

"(c) Categories in Which Award May Be 
Given.— (1) Subject to paragraph (2), sepa- 
rate awards shall be made to qualifying or- 



ganizations in each of the following catego- 
ries— 

"(A) Small businesses. 

"(B) Companies or their subsidiaries. 

"(C) Companies which primarily provide 
services. 

"(2) The Secretary may at any time 
expand, subdivide, or otherwise modify the 
list of categories within which awards may 
be made as initially in effect under para- 
graph (1), and may establish separate 
awards for other organizations including 
units of government, upon a determination 
that the objectives of this section would be 
better served thereby; except that any such 
expansion, subdivision, modification, or es- 
tablishment shall not be effective unless 
and until the Secretary has submitted a de- 
tailed description thereof to the Congress 
and a period of 30 days has elapsed since 
that submission. 

"(3) Not more than two awards may be 
made within any subcategory in any year 
(and no award shall be made within any cat- 
egory or subcategory if there are no qualify- 
ing enterprises in that category or subcate- 
gory). 

"(d) Criteria for Qualification.— (1) An 
organization may qualify for an award 
under this section only if it— 

"(A) applies to the Director of the Nation- 
al Bureau of Standards in writing, for the 
award, 

"(B) permits a rigorous evaluation of the 
way in which its business and other oper- 
ations have contributed to improvements in 
the quality of goods and services, and 

"(C) meets such requirements and specifi- 
cations as the Secretary, after receiving rec- 
ommendations from the Board of Overseers 
established under paragraph (2KB) and the 
Director of the National Bureau of Stand- 
ards, determines to be appropriate to 
achieve the objectives of this section. 
In applying the provisions of subparagraph 
(C) with respect to any organization, the Di- 
rector of the National Bureau of Standards 
shall rely upon an intensive evaluation by a 
competent board of examiners which shall 
review the evidence submitted by the orga- 
nization and, through a site visit, verify the 
accuracy of the quality improvements 
claimed. The examination should encom- 
pass all aspects of the organization's current 
practice of quality management, as well as 
the organization's provision for quality 
management in its future goals. The award 
shall be given only to organizations which 
have made outstanding improvements in 
the quality of their goods or services (or 
both) and which demonstrate effective qual- 
ity management through the training and 
involvement of all levels of personnel in 
quality improvement. 

"(2)(A) The Director of the National 
Bureau of Standards shall, under appropri- 
ate contractual arrangements, carry out the 
Director's responsibilities under subpara- 
graphs (A) and (B) of paragraph (1) 
through one or more broadbased nonprofit 
entities which are leaders in the field of 
quality management and which have a his- 
tory of service to society. 

"(B) The Secretary shall appoint a board 
of overseers for the award, consisting of at 
least five persons selected for their preemi- 
nence in the field of quality management. 
This board shall meet annually to review 
the work of the contractor or contractors 
and make such suggestions for the improve- 
ment of the award process as they deem 
necessary. The board shall report the re- 
sults of the award activities to the Director 






23068 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



of the National Bureau of Standards each 
year, along with its recommendations for 
improvement of the process. 

"(e) Information and Technology Trans- 
fer Program.— The Director of the National 
Bureau of Standards shall ensure that all 
program participants receive the complete 
results of their audits as well as detailed ex- 
planations of all suggestions for improve- 
ments. The Director shall also provide infor- 
mation about the awards and the successful 
quality improvement strategies and pro- 
grams of the awardwinning participants to 
all participants and other appropriate 
groups. 

"(f) Funding.— The Secretary is author- 
ized to seek and accept gifts from public and 
private sources to carry out the program 
under this section. If additional sums are 
needed to cover the full cost of the program, 
the Secretary shall impose fees upon the or- 
ganizations applying for the award in 
amounts sufficient to provide such addition- 
al sums. 

"(g) Report.— The Secretary shall prepare 
and submit to the President and the Con- 
gress, within 3 years after the date of the 
enactment of this setion, a report on the 
progress, findings, and conclusions of activi- 
ties conducted pursuant to this section 
along with recommendations for possible 
modifications thereof.". 

(b) Conforming Amendment.— Section 9(d) 
of such Act (15 U.S.C. 3708(d)) is amended 
by striking "or 16" and inserting in lieu 
thereof "16, or 17". 

Amend the title so as to read: "An Act to 
amend the Stevenson-Wydler Technology 
Innovation Act of 1980 to establish the Mal- 
colm Baldrige National Quality Award, with 
the objective of encouraging American busi- 
ness and other organizations to practice ef- 
fective quality control in the provision of 
their goods and services.". 

Mr. ROE (during the reading). Mr. 
Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that 
the Senate amendments be considered 
as read and printed in the Record. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Gray of Illinois). Is there objection to 
the request of the gentleman from 
New Jersey? 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, reserving 
the right to object, I yield to the gen- 
tleman from New Jersey [Mr. Roe], 

Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in sup- 
port of H.R. 812, the Malcolm Baldrige 
National Quality Improvement Act of 
1987. H.R. 812 passed the House on 
June 8, 1987, as the National Quality 
Improvement Act of 1987. The Senate 
then amended it by renaming the bill 
the Malcolm Baldrige National Qual- 
ity Improvement Act to pay homage to 
the late Secretary of Commerce. This 
bill establishes a National Quality 
Award in Secretary Baldrige's name to 
recognize and reward high quality in 
the goods and services of American 
business. 

Malcolm Baldrige knew from first- 
hand experience that the strength of 
American manufacturing depended on 
maintaining both high performance 
and high quality on the factory floor. 
He began his career in manufacturing 
in 1947 as a foundry hand at the East- 
ern Malleable Iron Co. in Naugatuck, 
CT, rising to president of the company 
by 1960. His own career in industry 



symbolizes the very essence of the 
award being established in his name. 

The award that H.R. 812 creates is 
modeled after the Japanese Deming 
Prize which is granted to companies, 
by specific category, which have at- 
tained highest quality management 
and best adherence to the principles of 
statistical quality control. 

The Baldrige award will consist of a 
medal inscribed with the words "Mal- 
colm Baldrige National Quality 
Award" and "The Quest for Excel- 
lence." It will be bestowed by the 
President or the Secretary of Com- 
merce to selected companies in recog- 
nition of improved quality. To qualify 
for the award applicants must prevail 
in an extensive review and examina- 
tion of the way in which they operate 
as a business. The review process will 
be conducted by a panel of our Na- 
tion's best quality experts. Those com- 
panies receiving the award then are 
permitted to use the commendation in 
their advertisements. This mechanism 
appears to be highly successful for re- 
cipients of the Deming Prize in Japan. 

The National Bureau of Standards is 
tasked with recruiting the private 
sector quality experts who will audit 
the program. We believe the Bureau 
to be uniquely suited for the responsi- 
bility of providing the independent 
and unbiased expertise necessary for 
judging product and performance 
quality. 

The entire award program outlined 
in H.R. 812, including administrative 
costs, would be funded by private con- 
tributions, or by a fee charged to 
award applicants. Thus, there are no 
appropriated Federal funds involved 
here. 

Mr. Speaker, the bill language is de- 
signed to provide the President or the 
Secretary of Commerce with flexibil- 
ity in bestowing the award by substi- 
tuting the term periodically for the 
term annually, although it is generally 
presumed that awards will be made 
every year. It is possible that there 
may be some years when no candi- 
dates will measure up to the award's 
criteria and therefore a dictate to 
make annual awards needs to be avoid- 
ed in the provisions. 

Similarly, the provision that no 
more than two awards be granted in 
any one category should be under- 
stood to have flexibility at the Secre- 
tary's discretion. If the Secretary finds 
that there are more than two entries 
in a category that clearly warrant the 
award, then he has the authority to 
expand, subdivide or modify a catego- 
ry accordingly. We do not expect this 
to be a frequent occurrence, however 
only the experience gained by con- 
ducting the awards program will make 
us knowledgeable of how many catego- 
ries are needed and whether or not 
other statutory revisions are neces- 
sary. 



Mr. Speaker, America's products are 
facing their toughest competition even 
in today's global marketplace. The 
pack of industrial nations continues to 
grow both in commitment and compe- 
tence to capture markets that were 
once our Nation's exclusive domain. 
We as a nation not only need to make 
every effort to encourage meeting the 
highest standards of quality, but we 
need to rebuild the confidence that 
America can redefine and elevate the 
meaning of quality by its own new 
standards for product and perform- 
ance. 

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 812 had solid bi- 
partisan support among the Members 
when it passed the House in June, and 
recently in the Senate. Not only is it a 
bill that furnishes incentive for Ameri- 
can industry to establish the highest 
standards of quality, but it is a fitting 
tribute to a man whose career was de- 
voted to the pursuit of excellence. I 
urge my colleagues to support this leg- 
islation. 

TRIBUTE TO JACK WYDLER 

Mr. Speaker, it is with a sad heart that I rise 
to pay tribute to a former colleague and good 
friend who passed away last Tuesday. Jack 
Wydler and I served together on the Science, 
Space, and Technology Committee from 1969 
until his retirement in 1980. Jack was an inde- 
fatigable worker and a dedicated representa- 
tive of his constituency. He served as the 
ranking Republican member of the committee. 
In this position of leadership he made a major 
contribution to the legislative accomplish- 
ments of the committee. Of particular signifi- 
cance was the legislation that bears his name, 
the Stevenson-Wydler Act. This visionary leg- 
islation recognized very early the need of this 
Nation to deal systematically and imaginatively 
with the problem of international technological 
competitiveness. The Stevenson-Wydler legis- 
lation will undergird our present thrust to deal 
with this program. 

On a personal basis, we will all miss his 
hearty good fellowship. His friendship and co- 
operation will not be forgotten. I know that all 
the members of the Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology join me in offering sin- 
cere sympathy to Brenda and the whole 
Wydler family in their bereavement. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, further re- 
serving the right to object, I rise in 
strong support of H.R. 812, as amend- 
ed by the Senate, and urge my col- 
leagues to do likewise. 

H.R. 812 was introduced in the 
House on May 18, 1987, as the Nation- 
al Quality Improvement Act of 1987. 

In honor of Secretary Malcolm Bal- 
drige and in recognition of his contri- 
bution to Government service, it is fit- 
ting that this award be named in his 
honor. The Senate amendment to 
H.R. 812 does just that. 

Malcolm Baldrige will be remem- 
bered for his focus on a sound U.S. 
trade policy, for his strong manage- 
ment style and for recognizing the 
value of technology transfer not only 
domestically but also internationally. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23069 



The House Committee on Science, 
Space, and Technology is indebted to 
Secretary Baldrige. He was instrumen- 
tal not only in the movement of this 
legislation but on several other issues 
of great importance to the committee. 

H.R. 812 amends the Stevenson- 
Wydler Act of 1980 and, as the rank- 
ing Republican member of the Science 
Committee, I would like to pay tribute 
to former Congressman Jack Wydler, 
who passed away 2 days ago. Jack 
served on the Science Committee from 
1964 until his retirement from Con- 
gress in 1981. During the 95th and 
96th Congress, he served as the rank- 
ing Republican on the committee. He 
was a friend and a colleague and will 
be remembered always. On behalf of 
the committee, I extend condolences 
to his wife and three children. 

I urge passage of H.R. 812 as amend- 
ed. 

Further reserving the right to 
object, Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gen- 
tleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Wal- 
gren]. 

Mr. WALGREN. Mr. Speaker, I 
thank the gentleman for yielding. I 
rise to urge support for final passage 
of H.R. 812, the Malcolm Baldrige 
Quality Improvement Act of 1987 as it 
has been amended by the Senate. This 
act was essentially amended by the 
Senate to rename the bill in honor of 
Malcolm Baldrige, the late Secretary 
of Commerce. Certainly his life and 
the contributions he made to our Na- 
tional Government in these several 
years are important indeed, and his 
memory is certainly appropriate for 
what we try to do in this bill. 

The purpose of the bill is to encour- 
age American businesses to improve 
the quality of their goods and services. 
We all know that in the future eco- 
nomic world we will find ourselves in 
that quality is what counts, and that it 
is going to take improvements in qual- 
ity to market our production both 
here and abroad. 

As Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm 
Baldrige was in the forefront of the 
fight to regain America's preeminence 
as the world leader in trade and com- 
merce, certainly it is fitting that this 
National Award for Excellence be es- 
tablished in his name. 

If the gentleman will continue to 
yield, I would like to quote from a 
letter that we received from Secretary 
Baldrige when we as a committee 
worked on this bill. He described this 
program as— 

Another step in encouraging American 
businesses to improve the quality of their 
goods and services. 

And noted that it does so without- 
Throwing a lot of dollars around indis- 
criminately at programs of unproven worth. 

Secretary Baldrige said: 

We have to encourage American execu- 
tives to get out of their boardrooms and 
onto the factory floor to learn how their 



products are made and how they can be 
made better. 

Certainly we know that in the pur- 
suit of this award process that is ex- 
actly what those executives will have 
to do, and certainly their production 
processes will be the beneficiaries. 

I also would like to mention in pass- 
ing that this is an area that has been 
governed by the umbrella act of Ste- 
venson-Wydler, named for Jack 
Wydler who served on our Committee 
on Science, Space, and Technology for 
a number of years before he retired 
several years ago, and of course Con- 
gressman Wydler died several days 
ago. So it is certainly appropriate that 
we remember his lasting imprint in 
this area. This act, by amending Ste- 
venson-Wydler, would pay tribute to 
him as well. 

I want to say again how much we all 
hope that we will see the return of the 
days when "made in the U.S.A." was 
synonymous with the best that money 
or anyone could buy anywhere in any 
form. I urge my colleagues to support 
this important legislation and thank 
the gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, I urge final passage of H.R. 
812, the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Im- 
provement Act of 1987, as amended and 
passed by the Senate on August 5, 1987. 
H.R. 812 passed the House on June 8, 1987, 
as the National Quality Improvement Act of 
1987. It was amended in the Senate by re- 
naming the bill the Malcolm Baldrige National 
Quality Improvement Act of 1987 in honor of 
the late Secretary of Commerce. 

The purpose of the bill is to encourage 
American businesses to improve the quality of 
their goods and services. Through sponsor- 
ship of the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality 
Award, to be given to the most meticulous of 
our companies, recognition is being given to 
the importance of quality to this country's eco- 
nomic well-being. 

As Secretary of Commerce, Malcolm Bal- 
drige was in the forefront of the fight to regain 
America's preeminence as the world leader in 
trade and commerce. I think it is most fitting 
that this national award for excellence be es- 
tablished in his name. 

I wruld like to quote from a letter that I re- 
ceivei from Secretary Baldrige when H.R. 812 
was being considered by the Science, Space, 
and Technology Committee: 

H.R. 812 takes yet another step in encour- 
aging American businesses to improve the 
quality of their goods and services, and does 
so without throwing a lot of dollars around 
indiscriminately at programs of unproven 
worth. We have to encourage American ex- 
ecutives to get out of their boardrooms and 
onto the factory floor to learn how their 
products are made and how they can be 
made better. 

H.R. 812 will do exactly this for applicants 
for the Baldrige Quality Award by means of its 
extensive quality audits and by singling out 
America's best companies for praise and 
emulation. 

I would also like to remind my colleagues 
that this bill is an amendment to the Steven- 
son-Wydler Act, named after our distinguished 
former colleague from New York, Jack 



Wydler, who passed away this Tuesday. 
Therefore, this act pays tribute to the Science 
Committee's former Republican leader as well 
as to Secretary Baldrige. 

Mr. Speaker, I want to see a return to the 
days when "made in the U.S.A." is synony- 
mous with "the best that money can buy." I 
urge my colleagues to support final passage 
of this important legislation. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, further re- 
serving the right to object, I yield to 
the gentleman from New York [Mr. 
Boehlert]. 

Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I 
want to join my colleagues in offering 
strong support for this fitting tribute 
to Secretary Baldrige. 

In a letter to our committee in 
March, Secretary Baldrige endorsed 
H.R. 812 as— 

Another step in encouraging American 
businesses to improve the quality of their 
goods and services. 

He continued: 

We have to encourage American execu- 
tives to get out of their boardrooms and on- 
to the factory floor to learn how their prod- 
ucts are made and how they can be made 
better. 

That was the heart of Malcolm Bal- 
drige's philosophy— active, personal in- 
volvement to improve every aspect of 
any operation he headed. He put that 
philosophy to work both in business 
and at the Commerce Department, 
where he revitalized an immense bu- 
reaucracy that had been virtually ig- 
nored for years. 

I can think of no more appropriate 
memorial to Secretary Baldrige than 
the creation of the 'National Quality 
Award"— a medal that would lead 
more executives to follow in his very 
active footsteps. 

In closing, Mr. Speaker, would also 
like to join with my colleagues in 
paying tribute to a former very distin- 
guished member of our committee, the 
late Jack Wydler. 

Mr. LUJAN. Mr. Speaker, I with- 
draw my reservation of objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey? 

There was no objection. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the initial request 
of the gentleman from New Jersey? 

There was no objection. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 



GENERAL LEAVE 

Mr. ROE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- 
mous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days within which to 
revise and extend their remarks on the 
Senate amendments just adopted. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Jersey? 

There was no objection. 



HI 



■■■ 



23070 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7 y 1987 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under 
a previous order of the House, the gen- 
tleman from Texas [Mr. Gonzalez] is 
recognized for 60 minutes. 

[Mr. GONZALEZ addressed the 
House. His remarks will appear hereaf- 
ter in the Extensions of Remarks.] 



RECESS 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- 
ant to a previous order of the House, 
the Chair declares the House in recess 
until 3 p.m. today. 

The Chair will notify Members 15 
minutes prior to reconvening. 

Accordingly (at 1 o'clock and 28 min- 
utes p.m.), the House stood in recess 
until 3 p.m. 



□ 1530 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the 
House was called to order by the 
Speaker at 3 o'clock and 23 minutes 
p.m. 



FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE 
SENATE 

A further message from the Senate 
by Mr. Hallen, one of its clerks, an- 
nounced that the Senate had passed 
without amendment a bill of the 
House of the following title: 

H.R. 2855. An act to settle Indian land 
claims in the town of Gay Head, MA, and 
for other purposes. 

The message also announced that 
the Senate had passed with an amend- 
ment in which the concurrence of the 
House is requested, a bill of the House 
of the following title: 

H.R. 2974. An Act to amend title 10, 
United States Code, to make technical cor- 
rections in provisions of law enacted by the 
Military Retirement Reform Act of 1986. 



MESSAGE FROM THE 
PRESIDENT 

A message in writing from the Presi- 
dent of the United States was commu- 
nicated to the House by Mrs. Emery, 
one of his secretaries, who also in- 
formed the House that on the follow- 
ing dates the President approved and 
signed bills and a joint resolution of 
the following titles: 
On July 21, 1987: 

H.J. Res. 122. Joint resolution to designate 
the week beginning July 16, 1987, as "Snow 
White Week." 

On July 22, 1987: 

H.R. 558. An act to provide urgently 
needed assistance to protect and improve 
the lives and safety of the homeless, with 
special emphasis on elderly persons, handi- 
capped persons, and families with children. 
On July 30, 1987: 

H.R. 3022. An act to provide for a tempo- 
rary extension of the public debt limit. 



REPEAL BUDGET ACT AND 
GRAMM-RUDMAN-HOLLINGS 

(Mr. CONTE asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. CONTE. Mr. Speaker, after the 
August recess I will introduce a bill to 
repeal the Budget Act and Gramm- 
Rudman-Hollings. 

I know that many Members are re- 
luctant to give up the deadlines in the 
Budget Act. But in 11 fiscal years 
under the Budget Act we have met the 
deadline for adopting the first budget 
resolution once, in 1977. 

Look at how long it has taken to 
adopt the budget resolution in the last 
5 fiscal years: 1988, June 24, 70 days 
late; 1987, June 27, 73 days late; 1986, 
August 1, 78 days late; 1984, October 1, 
139 days late; and 1983, June 23, 39 
days late. 

During these 5 years, out of a total 
of 65 appropriation bills, only 9 were 
signed before the start of the fiscal 
year, 18 were signed after the start of 
the fiscal year, and 38 bills were car- 
ried for the full year in a CR. 

The last time we enacted all of the 
appropriation bills before the start of 
the fiscal year was 1954. 

In fiscal 1986 and 1987 not a single 
appropriation bill was enacted before 
the start of the fiscal year. In fiscal 
1987 not a single bill was enacted. All 
13 were carried in the CR. 

The budget process virtually guaran- 
tees that we will not be able to act on 
appropriations, and that there will be 
a big CR. 

Repeal the Budget Act. Repeal 
Gramm-Rudman-Hollings. Send 

Mickey Mouse back to Disneyland. 
Then the President will propose, and 
the Congress will dispose, and the re- 
sponsibility for deficits and CR's will 
be absolutely clear. 

Of course, maybe that's what we're 
afraid of. 



FORTY-SECOND ANNIVERSARY 
OF DROPPING OF ATOMIC 
BOMB ON HIROSHIMA 

(Mr. WEISS asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks.) 

Mr. WEISS. Mr. Speaker, yesterday 
the world commemorated the 42d an- 
niversary of the dropping of an atomic 
bomb on Hiroshima. 

We, meaning all humanity, have 
been fortunate for the last 42 years in 
that there has not been, except for the 
second bomb dropped on Nagasaki a 
few days later, a repetition of that 
event. 

We have no guarantee that we will 
always be as lucky. It only takes one 
accident, one dropping of a bomb any- 
place, for it to trigger an all-out nucle- 
ar war. 



I had occasion as a young member of 
the U.S. Armed Forces to visit Hiroshi- 
ma in the summer of 1947, barely 2 
years after the bomb was dropped. 
Hiroshima had not at all been rebuilt. 
There were some wooden structures 
that had been put up as temporary 
shelters. The observatory, which has 
become the symbol of the atomic 
bomb attack, was there as it is now as 
a reminder. 

I have had occasion since then to re- 
visit Hiroshima. The city has been to- 
tally rebuilt, but the people of that 
city are understandably obsessed with 
what happened on August 6, 1945. 
They look forward and they look back- 
ward. 

They know, as we all should know, 
that Hiroshima serves as a constant 
object lesson to all of humanity. We 
had better get on with the business of 
reining in the nuclear arms race 
before it means the destruction of all 
of us. 



U.S. WHEAT GLUTEN INDUSTRY 
VICTIMIZED BY EEC SUBSIDIES 

(Mr. SLATTERY asked and was 
given permission to address the House 
for 1 minute and to revise and extend 
his remarks.) 

Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, fair 
trade is taking another beating at the 
hands of the European Economic 
Community. 

The U.S. wheat gluten industry is 
about to become the latest victim of 
EEC predatory pricing practices. 

Wheat gluten is a protein derivative 
of wheat flour that is used in products 
ranging from breakfast cereals to 
pasta to whole grain breads. 

EEC wheat gluten producers are sell- 
ing to U.S. customers at prices that 
undercut U.S. manufacturers by 20 
percent— prices made possible by 
export subsidies that are clearly in vio- 
lation of the GATT. 

The EEC is now poised to dramati- 
cally expand subsidized wheat gluten 
exports. According to industry esti- 
mates, the surplus from the European 
producers could soon supply the entire 
U.S. market. 

Today, I am introducing a resolution 
urging that the U.S. Trade Represent- 
ative immediately institute proceed- 
ings under section 301 to respond to 
these unfair trade subsidies. If consul- 
tation with the European Community 
fails to result in the complete elimina- 
tion of wheat gluten subsidies, the 
U.S. Trade Representative should rec- 
ommend to the President relief that 
would completely offset the effect of 
those subsidies on the U.S. wheat 
gluten industry. 

Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Trade Repre- 
sentative must act now. 

The U.S. wheat gluten industry is 
small. It is comprised of only three 
firms nationwide. Moreover, these 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23071 



firms are not a part of larger compa- 
nies which could absorb losses while 
lengthy trade negotiations take place. 
Matching the subsidized price of 
EEC wheat gluten would cost domestic 
manufacturers $20 million per year— a 
loss they could not sustain for even 1 
year. 

These subsidies aren't even hidden. 
In fact, the level of export subsidies is 
published monthly by the EEC. Ac- 
cording to the June 1 report, firms ex- 
porting wheat gluten are refunded 
14.8 cents per pound, assuming the 
July 17 exchange rates. 

The EEC now produces a surplus of 
70 million pounds of wheat gluten 
each year. The completion of addition- 
al facilities now under construction 
will increase surplus production to 100 
million pounds. 

The total U.S. market for wheat 
gluten is only 130 million pounds. In 
the very near future, the EEC will be 
able to supply that market from its 
surplus production alone. 

Concern over the subsidized produc- 
tion and export of wheat gluten is by 
no means confined to the wheat 
gluten industry. It is an issue for agri- 
cultural producers as well. 

This problem began with EEC-subsi- 
dized production of starch from low- 
protein European wheat. Wheat 
gluten is a coproduct of that process, 
and is now being produced in quanti- 
ties that far exceed EEC needs. From 
1980 to 1985, the EEC share of world 
wheat gluten production jumped from 
23 to 38 percent. 

The production of wheat starch has 
allowed the EEC to dramatically cut 
imports of U.S. corn, while the gluten 
byproduct has served as a protein sup- 
plement, allowing the EEC to sharply 
reduce imports of high-protein U.S. 
wheat. 

Furthermore, if we allow EEC wheat 
gluten to replace our domestic produc- 
tion it will further reduce the utiliza- 
tion of U.S. wheat by 10 million bush- 
els annually. It would be the function- 
al equivalent of importing 10 million 
bushels of wheat each year. 

To protect its domestic industry, the 
EEC also restricts imports of wheat 
gluten through a 90-percent import 
duty— 11 times higher than the duty 
imposed on U.S. wheat gluten imports. 
As other wheat gluten producers are 
shut out of the EEC market, the risk 
grows that the United States will 
become a dumping ground for the 
world's excess. 

Mr. Speaker, all my resolution asks 
for is a level playing field. I do not 
support or condone protectionism. But 
we must demand that our trading 
partners follow the same accepted 
standards of international fair trade 
that we do. 

Unfortunately, trade rights are not 
self-enforcing. We must stand up and 
defend our rights in the international 



marketplace or we will lose those 
rights. 

The EEC has consistently taken a 
hardball approach to international 
trade. And it's time we get in the 
game. The tools to combat these 
unfair and predatory trade practices 
are available under current law. But 
we must have the backbone to use 
them. 

No amount of moral suasion is going 
to solve this problem. The EEC will at- 
tempt to take advantage of us at every 
opportunity and they will get by with 
it any time we allow them. 

We have the option of sitting on the 
sidelines while American industry and 
workers take one beating after an- 
other. Or we can get in the game and 
help defend U.S. firms against interna- 
tional economic attack. The sooner we 
decide to go to bat for American indus- 
try and workers the better. 



GENERAL LEAVE 

Mr. BONIOR of Michigan. Mr. 
Speaker, earlier today the House re- 
jected the rule on House Joint Resolu- 
tion 132, and as a result general debate 
was not available to Members of the 
House to express themselves on the 
joint resolution. 

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask unani- 
mous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to 
revise and extend their remarks on the 
rule, House Resolution 238, and that 
Members be permitted to address the 
subject matter of the joint resolution 
to which the rule pertains under this 
general leave. 

The SPEAKER. Is there objection 
to the request of the gentleman from 
Michigan? 

There was no objection. 



EXTENDING GOVERNING INTER- 
NATIONAL FISHERY AGREE- 
MENT BETWEEN UNITED 
STATES AND SOVIET UNION (H. 
DOC. NO. 100-96) 

The SPEAKER laid before the 
House the following message from the 
President of the United States; which 
was read and, together with the ac- 
companying papers, referred to the 
Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries, and orderd to be printed. 

(For message, see proceedings of the 
Senate of today, Friday, August 7, 
1987.) 



RECESS 

The SPEAKER. The Chair declares 
the House in recess until 4:30 p.m. 

Accordingly (at 3 o'clock and 34 min- 
utes p.m.), the House stood in recess 
until 4:30 p.m. 



□ 1706 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the 
House was called to order by the 
Speaker pro tempore [Mr. Frost] at 5 
o'clock and 6 minutes p.m. 



LEGISLATIVE PROGRAM 

(Mr. FOLEY asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute.) 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I would 
yield to the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, 
Mr. Rostenkowski, and ask him to 
report to the House on the proceeding 
of the Committee on Conference. 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speak- 
er, will the gentleman yield? 

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentle- 
man from Illinois [Mr. Rostenkow- 
ski]. 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. I thank the 
gentleman for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, the House has just re- 
ceived a counteroffer from the Senate 
to the offer made by the House and it 
is the intention of the chairman of the 
House conferees to have the House 
conferees meet at 5:30 in room 1100, 
Longworth Building, to further consid- 
er the Senate counteroffer. 

The offer is one that I think certain- 
ly shows progress and I think that the 
House conferees should sit in confer- 
ence and make a judgment about it. 

I would like to go further, Mr. Ma- 
jority Leader, and suggest that it is my 
intention to offer a motion with re- 
spect to a short-term extension. How- 
ever, the conference that is presently 
considering the long-term extension 
has not concluded and should not in 
any way be interpreted as concluded. 
It is my judgment, Mr. Speaker, that if 
we pass the short-term extension that 
the conference will continue to meet 
with the possibilities of sending a 
counteroffer to the Senate, should 
this offer by the Senate not be agreed 
to. 

It is my judgment that this is a valid 
undertaking with every intention of 
concluding a successful conference and 
if it is at all possible, I would like to 
see that done. 

If, Mr. Speaker, that is not possible 
it does not mean that the conference 
is going to report back in disagree- 
ment; there is a possibility that we 
could come back in September and 
further consider what the conference 
has before it. 

Mr. LOTT. Mr. Speaker, will the 
gentleman yield? 

Mr. FOLEY. I yield to the gentle- 
man. 

Mr. LOTT. I thank the gentleman 
for yielding. 

Mr. Speaker, could the gentleman 
translate that? 










23072 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Was the 
gentleman not listening? 

Mr. LOTT. I was listening but I 
would like to put it in layman's lan- 
guage as to what that means for the 
Members as far as what they are going 
to be expected to do in the next hour 
and what that means for them tonight 
or tomorrow. 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Well, the 
conferees that were so eager to serve 
on this conference will meet at 5:30. 

Mr. LOTT. Are we fixing to have a 
motion now and a vote on a short-term 
extension? 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. It is the in- 
tention of the chairman of the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means to offer 
that as a motion so that other Mem- 
bers if they feel that they have to 
leave can leave. But I do not see us 
coming to any 

Mr. LOTT. And that would take us 
45 days, short-term? What is the 
short-term? 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. September 
23. 

Mr. LOTT. September 23. And if I 
could ask the distinguished majority 
leader, would we then plan to bring up 
the adjournment resolution? 

Mr. FOLEY. Yes, it would be our in- 
tention to bring up the adjournment 
resolution, again with the understand- 
ing that the members of the confer- 
ence committee would continue to 
seek to reach agreement. 

Mr. LOTT. So the hope is to keep 
the conferees here but the other Mem- 
bers, assuming that the short-term 
should pass, and be accepted by the 
Senate, then the other Members 
would not be expected to be here to- 
morrow, for instance, is that correct? 

Mr. FOLEY. The gentleman is cor- 
rect. 

Mr. LOTT. The gentleman from Illi- 
nois, if I could address a question to 
him, if the gentleman from Washing- 
ten would yield so that I could ask a 
question: Does the gentleman have 
any idea how long the conference 
might work tonight? I mean, we could 
go through these offers and counter- 
offers for a good long while. 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Well, it is 
very unfair for me to make a judgment 
as to how long it will meet. All things 
being favorably considered, the gentle- 
man from Illinois would like to see a 
counteroffer offered to the Senate and 
maybe a negotiation, the possibility of 
agreeing to a conference report, the 
possibility of conferees signing it but 
not taking it up until such time as we 
return from our recess. 

Mr. LOTT. Let me ask you this then: 
Just assume that there should be some 
second birth here of this thing and 
you could get an agreement at mid- 
night tonight, I take it that the long- 
term extension with this agreement 
would not be brought back to the 
House until September. 



Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. I am sure 
that the leadership would make those 
arrangements so that the Members 
will not have to return. 

Mr. LOTT. I thank the gentleman. 



TEMPORARY PUBLIC DEBT 
LIMIT INCREASE 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speak- 
er, pursuant to the unanimous-consent 
agreement of August 6, 1987, and with 
the consent of the majority and the 
minority leaders, I call up the bill 
(H.R. 3190), to provide for a tempo- 
rary increase in the public debt limit. 

The Clerk read the bill, as follows: 
H.R. 3190 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, That during 
the period beginning on the date of the en- 
actment of this Act and ending on Septem- 
ber 23, 1987, the public debt limit set forth 
in subsection (b) of section 3101 of title 31, 
United States Code, shall be equal to 
$2,352,000,000,000. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Rosten- 
kowski] is recognized for 1 hour. 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speak- 
er, the debt ceiling extension which is 
what we have just discussed carries us 
through September 23. It is at the 
level of $2,352,000,000,000 through 
September 23. 

Mr. Speaker, I have no requests for 
time, and I yield back the balance of 
my time. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursu- 
ant to the order of the House on 
Thursday, August 6, 1987, the previous 
question is ordered. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
and read a third time, and was read 
the third time, and passed, and a 
motion to reconsider was laid on the 
table. 



ANNOUNCEMENT BY THE CHAIR- 
MAN OF THE COMMITTEE ON 
WAYS AND MEANS 

Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI. Mr. Speak- 
er, I wish to announce to the Members 
that the House conferees on the 
budget are meeting at 5:30 in 1100 
Longworth House Office Building. 



□ 1715 

AN UPDATE ON THE CURRENT 
STATUS OF FSLIC 

(Mr. PARRIS asked and was given 
permission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks. ) 

Mr. PARRIS. Mr. Speaker, my col- 
leagues will recall that I have taken 
the floor of this House on a number of 
occasions in the recent past to discuss 
the FSLIC bill. We have now passed 
the bill. I supported it, and it was nec- 
essary to do so. 



Subject to the passage of that bill, 
we have undertaken to calculate the 
premium income for 1987 based on the 
average savings and loan deposits 
during the year 1987. That figure is 
$894 billion. If you take the projection 
based on the deposit growth for the 
first 5 months of 1987, with the regu- 
lar premium of one-twelfth of 1 per- 
cent, $745 million, the special assess- 
ment on that amount of money, one- 
eighth of 1 percent, is $1,118 million 
on total gross premium income of 
$1,863 million, less 20 percent, as au- 
thorized under the bill, with the recov- 
ery of the secondary reserve $165 mil- 
lion, the net premium income to 
FSLIC in 1987 would be $1,698 million. 
The annual interest payments on the 
recap bonds authorized by the bill, as- 
suming 10 percent rates, which is 1.25 
percent or 125 basis points higher 
than the current yield on long-term 
Treasury bonds, the annual interest 
cost to FSLIC on the full amount of 
the $10,824 billion in bonds at 10 per- 
cent obviously is $1,082,400,000. This is 
the amount of interest that will be 
charged on these bonds each and 
every year for the 25 or 30 years. 

The key facts regarding the debt 
service burden are these, Mr. Speaker: 
The annual interest on the $10.82 bil- 
lion will exceed FSLIC's current regu- 
lar premium income, as indicated earli- 
er in these remarks, at $745 million, by 
approximately $337 million annually. 

Let me just summarize my com- 
ments, Mr. Speaker. I will do so very 
quickly. The point of all this is that 
FSLIC's current regular premium 
income of $745 million will be in fact 
exceeded by the cost of the bonds to 
be issued in full amount by $337 mil- 
lion annually. If the savings and loan 
deposits level off, if the debt service on 
the bonds through the years, 1990 
through 1992, will consume two-thirds 
of FSLIC's total premium income, if 
you believe in and adhere to the 20- 
percent annual amortization of the 
secondary reserve and if the special as- 
sessment is not phased out. 

Therefore, the debt service on the 
recap plan bonds will consume 60 per- 
cent of FSLIC's current premium 
income, assuming the special assess- 
ment continues indefinitely, and it 
would certainly appear from these 
numbers, Mr. Speaker, that we have 
no alternative but to do so. 



PROVIDING FOR ADJOURNMENT 
OF THE HOUSE FROM FRIDAY, 
AUGUST 7, 1987, OR SATURDAY, 
AUGUST 8, 1987, TO WEDNES- 
DAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 1987 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I offer a 
privileged concurrent resolution (H. 
Con. Res. 175) and ask for its immedi- 
ate consideration. 

The Clerk read the concurrent reso- 
lution, as follows: 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23073 



H. Con. Res. 175 



Resolved by the House of Representatives 
(the Senate concurring), That when the 
House adjourns on Friday, August 7, 1987, 
or Saturday. August 8, 1987, pursuant to a 
motion made by the majority leader, or his 
designee, in accordance with this resolution, 
it stand adjourned until 12 o'clock meridian 
on Wednesday, September 9, 1987, or until 
12 o'clock meridian on the second day after 
Members are notified to reassemble pursu- 
ant to section 2 of this concurrent resolu- 
tion. 

Sec. 2. The Speaker of the House and the 
majority leader of the Senate, acting jointly 
after consultation with the minority leader 
of the House and the minority leader of the 
Senate, shall notify the Members of the 
House and the Senate, respectively, to reas- 
semble whenever, in their opinion, the 
public interest shall warrant it. 

The concurrent resolution was 
agreed to. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 



AUTHORIZING THE SPEAKER TO 
ACCEPT RESIGNATIONS AND 
TO APPOINT COMMISSIONS, 
BOARDS, AND COMMITTEES 
NOTWITHSTANDING ADJOURN- 
MENT 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that notwithstand- 
ing any adjournment of the House 
until Wednesday, September 9, 1987, 
the Speaker be authorized to accept 
resignations and to appoint commis- 
sions, boards, and committees author- 
ized by law or by the House. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. 
Frost). Is there objection to the re- 
quest of the gentleman from Washing- 
ton? 

There was no objection. 



DISPENSING WITH CALENDAR 
WEDNESDAY BUSINESS ON 
WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 9, 
1987 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that the business 
in order under the Calendar Wednes- 
day rule be dispensed with on Calen- 
dar Wednesday, September 9, 1987. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 



EXTENDING TO MEMBERS 

PRIVILEGE TO REVISE AND 
EXTEND REMARKS IN THE 
CONGRESSIONAL RECORD 

NOTWITHSTANDING ADJOURN- 
MENT 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that notwithstand- 
ing the adjournment of the House 
until Wednesday, September 9, 1987, 
all Members of the House shall have 
the privilege to extend and revise their 
own remarks in the Congressional 
Record on more than one subject, if 



they so desire, and may also include 
therein such short quotations as may 
be necessary to explain or complete 
such extensions of remarks; but this 
order shall not apply to any subject 
matter which may have occurred or to 
any speech delivered subsequent to 
the said adjournment. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Washington? 

There was no objection. 



INTRODUCTION OF THE MISSIS- 
SIPPI RIVER NATIONAL HERIT- 
AGE CORRIDOR ACT 

(Mr. ESPY asked and was given per- 
mission to address the House for 1 
minute and to revise and extend his 
remarks. 

Mr. ESPY. Mr. Speaker, today I am 
joined by 43 of my colleagues in intro- 
ducing legislation that would create 
the Mississippi River National Herit- 
age Corridor. I am proud to be the 
chief sponsor of this bill and honored 
to have my friends and colleagues join 
me. We are joined in our efforts by the 
federally recognized Mississippi River 
Parkway Commission which is head- 
quartered in St. Paul, MN. 

The mighty Mississippi River 
stretches 2,470 miles from north cen- 
tral Minnesota to the Gulf of Mexico 
and runs the entire western length of 
my district, more than 300 miles along 
its banks. The identity of 10 States are 
intimately linked to the river; Arkan- 
sas, Illinois, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisi- 
ana, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 
Tennessee, and Wisconsin are touched 
by the Mississippi River in more than 
one way. 

The Mississippi River is a national 
treasure, unique for the abundance of 
commerce, folklore, culture, and histo- 
ry, and a special way of life for mil- 
lions of Americans for more than two 
centuries. This river is known 
throughout the world and its reputa- 
tion as the great river goes beyond the 
fact that it is a massive body of water. 

The Mississippi River means trade, 
commerce, and jobs, and with the cre- 
ation of the National Heritage Corri- 
dor, we will provide a means and a 
stimulus for coordination for the pres- 
ervation, protection, enhancement, en- 
joyment, and continuing utilization of 
the resources of the Mississippi River. 

Mr. Speaker, because there is no 
single source to collect or disseminate 
information on the multiuses and op- 
portunities in the river valley, the 
commission formed by this legislation 
will serve a valuable role as a clearing- 
house for a variety of information 
about the Mississippi River. The com- 
mission will be charged with the com- 
pletion of a multif aceted study and as- 
sessment of the resources and econom- 
ic opportunities in the corridor. I feel 
that a balanced approach in the uses 
of the river will help preserve its 



beauty, its health, and its reputation 
as a living, working river. 

The creation of the Mississippi River 
National Heritage Corridor is long 
overdue and important to the overall 
development of the river valley. 
Through the enactment of this legisla- 
tive proposal, I believe we can insure 
the greatest possible use of the river 
with a balanced concern for its herit- 
age, historical landmarks, wildlife 
preservation, and economic growth for 
generations. 



REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER 
AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 925 

Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 925. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Nevada? 

There was no objection. 



REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER 
AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 3142 

Mr. MARTINEZ. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a cosponsor of H.R. 3142. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California? 

There was no objection. 



REMOVAL OF NAME OF MEMBER 
AS COSPONSOR OF H.R. 1122 

Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, I ask 
unanimous consent that my name be 
removed as a cosponsor of the bill, 
H.R. 1122. My name was added errone- 
ously. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is 
there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas? 

There was no objection. 



PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY 

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, I have 
a parliamentary inquiry. 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
gentleman will state it. 

Mr. FRENZEL. Mr. Speaker, on the 
assumption that the House is going to 
recess again, can the Chair inform the 
Members as to how long the notice 
will be for the Members when we 
return to session? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
bells will be rung 15 minutes before 
the House goes back into session. 

Mr. FRENZEL. We will be on 15 
minutes' notice only? 

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
gentleman is correct. And the cloak- 
rooms will be notified. 



RECESS 



The SPEAKER pro tempore. The 
Chair declares a recess subject to the 
call of the Chair. 



23074 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Accordingly (at 5 o'clock and 29 min- 
utes p.m.), the House stood in recess 
subject to the call of the Chair. 



□ 2155 

AFTER RECESS 

The recess having expired, the 

House was called to order by the 

Speaker at 10 o'clock and 5 minutes 

p.m. 



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

A message from the Senate by Mr. 
Hallen, one of its clerks, announced 
that the Senate had passed without 
amendment a bill and joint resolution 
of the House of the following titles: 

H.R. 3190. An act to provide for a tempo- 
rary increase in the public debt limit; and 

H.J. Res. 216. Joint resolution to support 
a ceasefire in the Iran-Iraq war and a nego- 
tiated solution to the conflict. 

The message also announced that 
the Senate had passed with amend- 
ments in which the concurrence of the 
House is requested, a concurrent reso- 
lution of the House of the following 
title: 

H. Con. Res. 175. Concurrent resolution 
providing for an adjournment of the Con- 
gress until September 9, 1987. 

The message also announced that 
the Senate agrees to the amendment 
of the House to the bill (S. 1591) enti- 
tled "An act to temporarily restrict 
the ability to document foreign-built 
fish processing vessels under the laws 
of the United States." 

The message also announced that 
the Senate had passed bills of the fol- 
lowing titles, in which the concurrence 
of the House is requested: 

S. 1441. An act to reduce the incidence of 
infant mortality; 

S. 1574. An act to combine the Senators' 
Clerk Hire Allowance Account and the Sen- 
ators' Official Office Expense Account into 
a combined single account to be known as 
the "Senators' Official Personnel and Office 
Expense Account", and for other purposes; 
and 

S. 1642. An act to designate the U.S. 
Courthouse located at the intersection of 
Uniondale Avenue and Hempstead Turnpike 
in Uniondale, NY, as the "John W. Wydler 
United States Courthouse." 



MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE 

The SPEAKER. The Chair lays 
before the House the following mes- 
sage from the Senate: 

The Clerk read as follows: 
H. Con. Res. 175 

Resolved, That the concurrent resolution 
from the House of Representatives (H. Con. 
Res. 175) entitled "Concurrent resolution 
providing for an adjournment of the Con- 
gress until September 9, 1987", do pass with 
the following amendment: 

The Clerk read the Senate amend- 
ment, as follows: 

Strike out all after the resolving clause 
and insert: 



That when the Senate adjourns on Friday, 
August 7, pursuant to a motion made by the 
majority leader, or his designee, in accord- 
ance with this resolution, it stand adjourned 
until 10:00 o'clock a.m. on Wednesday, Sep- 
tember 9, 1987, or until 12:00 o'clock meridi- 
an on the second day after Members are no- 
tified to reassemble pursuant to section 2 of 
this concurrent resolution, whichever occurs 
first, and that when the House of Repre- 
sentatives adjourns on Friday, August 7, 
1987, or Saturday, August 8, 1987, pursuant 
to a motion made by the majority leader, or 
his designee, in accordance with this resolu- 
tion, it stand adjourned until 12:00 o'clock 
meridian on Wednesday, September 9, 1987, 
or until 12:00 o'clock meridian on the second 
day after Members are notified to reassem- 
ble pursuant to section 2 of this concurrent 
resolution, whichever occurs first. 

Sec 2. The Speaker of the House and the 
majority leader of the Senate, acting jointly 
after consultation with the minority leader 
of the House and the minority leader of the 
Senate, shall notify the Members of the 
House and the Senate, respectively, to reas- 
semble whenever, in their opinion, the 
public interest shall warrant it. 

The SPEAKER. The question is on 
the Senate amendment. 

The Senate amendment was con- 
curred in. 

A motion to reconsider was laid on 
the table. 



LEAVE OF ABSENCE 

By unanimous consent, leave of ab- 
sence was granted to: 

Mr. Kostmayer (at the request of 
Mr. Foley), after 4:30 p.m. today, on 
account of official business. 

Mr. Rahall (at the request of Mr. 
Foley), after 4:30 p.m. today, on ac- 
count of official business. 

Mr. Alexander (at the request of 
Mr. Foley), for today. 

Mr. Craig (at the request of Mr. 
Michel), after 4:30 p.m. today, on ac- 
count of official business. 



SPECIAL ORDERS GRANTED 

By unanimous consent, permission 
to address the House, following the 
legislative program and any special 
orders heretofore entered, was granted 
to: 

(The following Member (at the re- 
quest of Mr. Upton) to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extra- 
neous material:) 

Mr. DioGuardi, for 60 minutes, 
today. 

(The following Members (at the re- 
quest of Mr. Hertel) to revise and 
extend their remarks and include ex- 
traneous material:) 

Mr. Annunzio, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. Stark, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. Fazio, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. Slattery, for 5 minutes, today. 

Mr. Boucher, for 10 minutes, today. 

Mr. English, for 60 minutes, today. 

Mr. Gonzalez, for 60 minutes, today. 

Mr. Gonzalez, for 60 minutes, on 
September 9. 



(The following Member (at the re- 
quest of Mr. Foley) to revise and 
extend his remarks and include extra- 
neous material:) 

Mr. Fazio, for 60 minutes, on Sep- 
tember 9. 



EXTENSION OF REMARKS 

By unanimous consent, permission 
to revise and extend remarks was 
granted to: 

Mr. Stratton, on House Resolution 
238 in the House, today. 

Mr. Biaggi, on House Resolution 238 
in the House, today. 

Mr. Panetta, and to include extrane- 
ous matter, notwithstanding the fact 
that it exceeds two pages and is esti- 
mated by the Public Printer to cost 
$2,455. 

Mr. Conyers, and to include extra- 
neous matter, notwithstanding the 
fact that it exceeds two pages and is 
estimated by the Public Printer to cost 
$6,383. 

(The following Members (at the re- 
quest of Mr. Upton) and to include ex- 
traneous matter:) 

Mr. Gilman. 

Mr. Gunderson in two instances. 

Mr. Solomon. 

Mr. Broomfield. 

Mr. Morrison of Washington. 

Mr. Dornan of California. 

Mr. Gallo. 

Mr. Kemp in two instances. 

Mr. Daub. 

Mr. Crane in four instances. 

Mr. Bliley. 

Mr. Hefley in five instances. 

Mr. Pursell. 

Mr. Fa well in two instances. 

Mr. McEwen in five instances. 

(The following Members (at the re- 
quest of Mr. Hertel) and to include 
extraneous matter:) 

Mr. Traficant. 

Mr. LaFalce. 

Mr. Stark in three instances. 

Mr. Lehman of Florida. 

Mr. Montgomery. 

Mr. Rodino. 

Mr. AuCoin. 

Mr. Sharp. 

Mr. Scheuer. 

Mr. Feighan. 

Mr. Ray. 

Mr. Martinez. 

Mr. Smith of Florida in two in- 
stances. 

Mr. Waxman. 

Mr. Morrison of Connecticut. 

Mr. Edwards of California in two in- 
stances. 

Mr. Wheat. 

Mr. Williams. 

Mr. Mazzoli in two instances. 

Mr. Hoyer. 

Mr. Boland. 

Mrs. Boggs. 

Mr. Hertel. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23075 



SENATE BILLS REFERRED 



Bills of the Senate of the following 
titles were taken from the Speaker's 
table and, under the rule, referred as 
follows: 

S. 945. An act to require the Secretary of 
Health and Human Services to make grants 
to local governments for demonstration 
projects to provide respite homes and other 
assistance for infants abandoned in hospi- 
tals, and for other purposes; to the Commit- 
tees on Education and Labor and Energy 
and Commerce. 

S. 1194. An act to transfer jurisdiction 
over certain lands in Bernalillo County, NM, 
from the General Services Administration 
to the Veterans' Administration; to the 
Committee on Government Operations. 

S. 1402. An act to amend title VIII of the 
Public Health Service Act to establish pro- 
grams to reduce the shortage of profession- 
al nurses; to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. 

S. 1441. An act to reduce the incidence of 
infant mortality; to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. 

S. 1532. An act relating to the payment 
for telecommunications equipment and cer- 
tain services furnished by the Sergeant at 
Arms and Doorkeeper of the Senate; to the 
Committee on House Administration. 

S. 1574. An act to combine the Senators' 
Clerk Hire Allowance Account and the Sen- 
ators' Official Office Expense Account into 
a combined single account to be known as 
the "Senators' Official Personnel and Office 
Expense Account", and for other purposes; 
to the Committee on House Administration. 

S. 1642. An act to designate the U.S. 
Courthouse located at the intersection of 
Uniondale Avenue and Hempstead Turnpike 
in Uniondale, NY, as the "John W. Wydler 
United States Courthouse"; to the Commit- 
tee on Public Works and Transportation. 



ENROLLED BILLS SIGN3D 

Mr. ANNUNZIO, from the Commit- 
tee on House Administration, reported 
that that committee had examined 
and found truly enrolled bills of the 
House of the following titles, which 
were thereupon signed by the Speaker: 

H.R. 2309. An act to amend the Christo- 
pher Columbus Quincentenary Jubilee Act; 

H.R. 2971. An act to provide continuing 
authority to the Secretary of Agriculture 
for recovering costs associated with cotton 
classing services, and for other purposes; 
and 

H.R. 2855. An act to settle Indian Land 
claims in the town of Gay Head, MA, and 
for other purposes. 



SENATE ENROLLED BILLS AND 
JOINT RESOLUTIONS SIGNED 

The SPEAKER announced his sig- 
nature to enrolled bills and joint reso- 
lutions of the Senate of the following 
titles: 

S. 1371. An act to designate the Federal 
building located at 330 Independence 
Avenue, SW, Washington, DC, as the 
"Wilbur J. Cohen Federal Building"; 

S. 1577. An act to extend certain protec- 
tions under title 11 of the United States 
Code, the Bankruptcy Code; 

S.J Res. 44. Joint resolution to designate 
November 1987, as "National Diabetes 
Month"; 



S.J. Res. 49. Joint resolution to designate 
September 18, 1987, as "National POW/ 
MIA Recognition Day"; 

S.J. Res. 87. Joint resolution to designate 
November 17, 1987, as "National Communi- 
ty Education Day"; 

S.J. Res. 108. Joint resolution to designate 
October 6, 1987, as "German- American 
Day"; 

S.J. Res. 109. Joint resolution to designate 
the week beginning October 4, 1987, as "Na- 
tional School Yearbook Week"; 

S.J. Res. 121. Joint resolution to designate 
August 11, 1987, as "National Neighborhood 
Crime Watch Day"; 

S.J. Res. 157. Joint resolution to designate 
the month of October 1987, as "Lupus 
Awareness Month"; and 

S.J. Res. 175. Joint resolution to recognize 
the efforts of the U.S. Soccer Federation in 
bringing the World Cup to the United 
States in 1994. 



BILLS PRESENTED TO THE 
PRESIDENT 

Mr. ANNUNZIO, from the Commit- 
tee on House Administration, reported 
that that committee did on this day 
present to the President, for his ap- 
proval, bills of the House of the fol- 
lowing titles: 

H.R. 348. An act to amend title 39, United 
States Code, to extend to certain officers 
and employees of the U.S. Postal Service 
the same procedural and appeal rights with 
respect to certain adverse personnel actions 
as are afforded under title 5, United States 
Code, to Federal employees in the competi- 
tive service; 

H.R. 1403. An act to designate the U.S. 
Post Office Building located in St. Charles, 
II, as the "John E. Grotberg Post Office 
Building"; 

H.R. 1444. An act to amend titles XI, 
XVIII, and XIX of the Social Security Act 
to protect beneficiaries under the health 
care programs of that act from unfit health 
care practitioners, and otherwise to improve 
the antifraud provisions relating to those 
programs; 

H.R. 921. An act to require the Secretary 
of the Interior to conduct a study to deter- 
mine the appropriate minimum altitude for 
aircraft flying over national park system 
units; 

H.R. 318. An act to provide for the resto- 
ration of the Federal trust relationship and 
Federal services and assistance to the Ysleta 
del Sur Pueblo and the Alabama and Cou- 
shatta Indian Tribes of Texas, and for other 
purposes; and 

H.R. 27. An act to regulate nonbank 
banks, impose a moratorium on certain se- 
curities and insurance activities by banks, 
recapitalize the Federal Savings and Loan 
Insurance Corporation, allow emergency 
interstate bank acquisitions, streamline 
credit union operations, regulate consumer 
checkholds, and for other purposes. 



DESIGNATION OP HON. THOMAS 
S. FOLEY TO ACT AS SPEAKER 
PRO TEMPORE TO SIGN EN- 
ROLLED BILLS AND JOINT RES- 
OLUTIONS UNTIL SEPTEMBER 
9, 1987 

The SPEAKER laid before the 
House the following communication: 



Washington, DC, 

August 7, 1987. 
I hereby designate the Honorable Thomas 
S. Foley to act as Speaker pro tempore to 
sign enrolled bills and joint resolutions until 
Wednesday, September 9, 1987. 

Jim Wright, 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

The SPEAKER. Without objection, 
the designation is agreed to. 
There was no objection. 



ADJOURNMENT TO WEDNESDAY, 
SEPTEMBER 9, 1987 

Mr. FOLEY. Mr. Speaker, I move 
that the House do now adjourn. 

The motion was agreed to. 

The SPEAKER. Pursuant to the 
provisions of House Concurrent Reso- 
lution 175 of the 100th Congress, the 
House stands adjourned until 12 
o'clock meridian, Wednesday, Septem- 
ber 9, 1987. 

Thereupon (at 10 o'clock and 8 min- 
utes p.m.), pursuant to House Concur- 
rent Resolution 175, the House ad- 
journed until Wednesday, September 
9, 1987, at 12 noon. 



EXECUTIVE COMMUNICATIONS, 
ETC. 

Under clause 2 of rule XXIV, execu- 
tive communications were taken from 
the Speaker's table and referred as fol- 
lows: 

1930. A letter from the Acting Secretary 
of Agriculture, transmitting a draft of pro- 
posed legislation to reduce the cost and im- 
prove the administration of the Food Stamp 
Program and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Agriculture. 

1931. A communication from the Presi- 
dent of the United States, transmitting re- 
quests for supplemental appropriations for 
the Veterans' Administration for fiscal year 
1987, pursuant to 31 U.S.C. 1107 (H. Doc. 
No. 100-97); to the Committee on Appro- 
priations and ordered to be printed. 

1932. A letter from the Deputy Assistant 
Secretary of Defense, transmitting the 
Navy's Determination and Findings indicat- 
ing the necessity to exclude the clause from 
a proposed contract with Moser Processing 
Ltd., Corseaux, Switzerland, pursuant to 10 
U.S.C. 2313(c); to the Committee on Armed 
Services. 

1933. A letter from the Secretary of 
Transportation, transmitting a draft of pro- 
posed legislation to amend title V of the 
Motor Vehicle Information and Cost Sav- 
ings Act, "Improving Automotive Efficien- 
cy," to repeal the corporate average fuel 
economy [CAFE] standards, and for other 
purposes; to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. 

1934. A letter from the Assistant Secre- 
tary of State for Legislative and Intergov- 
ernmental Affairs, transmitting notification 
of intent to provide a course of instruction 
in "Anti-Terrorist Urban Patrol Tech- 
niques" for El Salvador under the Anti-Ter- 
rorism Assistance Program, pursuant to 22 
U.S.C. 2349aa-3(a)(i); to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. 

1935. A letter from the Assistant Secre- 
tary of State for Legislative and Intergov- 
ernmental Affairs, transmitting copies of re- 
ports of political contributions by Max L. 



23076 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Friedersdorf, of Florida, Ambassador desig- 
nate, and members of his family, pursuant 
to 22 U.S.C. 3944(b)(2); to the Committee on 
Foreign Affairs. 

1936. A letter from the Assistant Secre- 
tary of State for Legislative and Intergov- 
ernmental Affairs, transmitting a report on 
recent events in El Salvador concerning the 
possibility of the "resurgence of death 
squad activities" in that country; to the 
Committee on Foreign Affairs. 

1937. A letter from the Assistant Secre- 
tary of State for Legislative and Intergov- 
ernmental Affairs, transmitting a copy of a 
resolution adopted by the Honduran Con- 
gress congratulating the U.S. Congress on 
the 200th anniversary of the Constitution of 
the United States; to the Committee on For- 
eign Affairs. 

1938. A letter from the Assistant Comp- 
troller-Insurance, Departments of the Army 
and the Air Force, transmitting the Depart- 
ments two actuary's reports for the year 
ended December 31, 1986, pursuant to 31 
U.S.C. 9503(a)(1)(B); to the Committee on 
Government Operations. 

1939. A letter from the Administrator, 
Panama Canal Commission, transmitting 
the Commission's notice of nine new Feder- 
al records systems, pursuant to 5 U.S.C. 
552a(o); to the Committee on Government 
Operations. 

1940. A letter from the Assistant Secre- 
tary for Legislative and Intergovernmental 
Affairs, Department of State, transmitting a 
draft of proposed legislation to amend the 
Immigration and Nationality Act; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 

1941. A letter from the Chairman, Nuclear 
Regulatory Commission, transmitting the 
Commission's report on abnormal occur- 
rences at licensed nuclear facilities for the 
fourth calendar quarter of 1986, pursuant to 
42 U.S.C. 5848; jointly, to the Committees 
on Energy and Commerce and Interior and 
Insular Affairs. 



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON 
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLU- 
TIONS 

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports 
of committees were delivered to the 
Clerk for printing and reference to the 
proper calendar, as follows: 

Mr. HAWKINS: Committee on Education 
and Labor. H.R. 1720. A bill to replace the 
existing AFDC program with a new Family 
Support Program which emphasizes work, 
child support, and need-based family sup- 
port supplements, to amend title IV of the 
Social Security Act to encourage and assist 
needy children and parents under the new 
program to obtain the education, training, 
and employment needed to avoid long-term 
welfare dependence, and to make other nec- 
essary improvements to assure that the new 
program will be more effective in achieving 
its objectives; with amendments (Rept. 100- 
159, Pt. 2). Ordered to be printed. 

Mr. WHEAT: Committee on Rules. House 
Resolution 253. Resolution providing for the 
consideration of H.R. 1327 a bill to amend 
the Public Health Service Act to establish a 
National Health Service Corps Loan Repay- 
ment Program and to otherwise revise and 
extend the program for the National Health 
Service Corps (Rept. 100-284). Referred to 
the House Calendar. 

Mr. HAWKINS: Committee on Education 
and Labor. H.R. 1122. A bill to implement 
the recommendations of the Secretary of 
Labor's Task Force on Economic Adjust- 



ment and Worker Dislocation, and for other 
purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 100- 
285). Referred to the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union. 

Mr. HOWARD: Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation. H.R. 1517. A bill 
to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
to require the installation and use of colli- 
sion avoidance systems in aircraft, to re- 
quire the Federal Aviation Administration 
to complete research on and development of 
the TCAS-III collision avoidance system as 
soon as possible, and for other purposes; 
with an amendment (Report No. 100-286, 
Pt. 1). Ordered to be printed. 

Mr. HAWKINS: Committee on Education 
and Labor. Report of the Committee on 
Education and Labor pursuant to section 
302(b) of the Congressional Budget Act of 
1974, as amended (Rept. 100-292). Referred 
to the Committee of the Whole House on 
the State of the Union. 

Mr. HOWARD: Committee on Public 
Works and Transportation. H.R. 3051. A bill 
to amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 
to establish minimum standards relating to 
air carrier passenger services, and for other 
purposes; with an amendment (Rept. 100- 
293). Referred to the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union. 



REPORTS OF COMMITTEES ON 
PRIVATE BILLS AND RESOLU- 
TIONS 

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports 
of committees were delivered to the 
Clerk for printing and reference to the 
proper calendar, as follows: 

Mr. FRANK: Committee on the Judiciary. 
H.R. 1578. A bill for the relief of Ray A. 
Bonney (Rept. 100-287). Referred to the 
Committee of the Whole House. 

Mr. FRANK: Committee on the Judiciary. 
H.R. 1579. A bill for the relief of Richard W. 
Ireland; (Rept. 100-288). Referred to the 
Committee of the Whole House. 

Mr. FRANK: Committee on the Judiciary. 
H.R. 1539. A bill for the relief of Meals on 
Wheels of the Monterey Peninsula, Incorpo- 
rated; (Rept. 100-289). Referred to the Com- 
mittee of the Whole House. 

Mr. FRANK: Committee on the Judiciary. 
H.R. 1490. A bill for the relief of Jean 
DeYoung; (Rept. 100-290). Referred to the 
Committee of the Whole House. 

Mr. FRANK: Committee on the Judiciary. 
H.R. 1388. A bill for the relief of David 
Butler, Aldo Cirone, Richard Denisi, 
Warren Fallon, Charles Hotton, Harold 
Johnson, Jean Lavoie, Vincent Maloney, 
Austin Mortensen, and Kurt Olofsson; with 
an amendment (Rept. 100-291). Referred to 
the Committee of the Whole House. 



PUBLIC BILLS AND 
RESOLUTIONS 

Under clause 5 of rule X and clause 
4 of rule XXII, public bills and resolu- 
tions were introduced and severally re- 
ferred as follows: 

By Mr. WAXMAN (for himself, Mr. 
Leland, Mr. Miller of California, 
and Mr. Nagle): 
H.R. 3187. A bill to amend the Public 
Health Service Act to revise and extend the 
authority of the Administrator of the Alco- 
hol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Admin- 
istration, including revising and extending 
the program of block grants for the provi- 
sion of services with respect to mental 



health and substance abuse; to the Commit- 
tee on Energy and Commerce. 
By Mr. WAXMAN: 
H.R. 3188. A bill to amend part B of title 
XVIII and XIX of the Social Security Act 
to provide for budget reconciliation with re- 
spect to part B of the Medicare Program 
and with respect to the Medicaid Program 
for fiscal year 1988; jointly, to the Commit- 
tees on Energy and Commerce and Ways 
and Means. 

H.R. 3189. A bill to amend the Public 
Health Service Act to revise and extend the 
program for the National Center for Health 
Services Research and Health Care Tech- 
nology Assessment and the National Center 
for Health Statistics; to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. 

By Mr. ROSTENKOWSKI: 
H.R. 3190. A bill to provide for a tempo- 
rary increase in the public debt limit; to the 
Committee on Ways and Means. 
By Mr. BLAZ: 
H.R. 3191. A bill to establish a Commis- 
sion on War Reparations for Guam; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 
By Mr. BOSCO: 
H.R. 3192. A bill to direct the Secretary of 
the Interior to renegotiate the schedules of 
payment, and to waive certain interest re- 
quirements, on certain loans to the Red- 
wood Valley County Water District; to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 
By Mr. CONYERS: 
H.R. 3193. A bill to provide for the acquisi- 
tion and publication of data about crimes 
that manifest prejudice based on race, reli- 
gion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. DAVIS of Michigan (for him- 
self, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Kildee, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Wolpe, Mr. Upton, 
Mr. Traxler, Mr. Schuette, Mr. 
Crockett, and Mr. Levin of Michi- 
gan): 
H.R. 3194. A bill to grant Federal recogni- 
tion to the Lac Vieux Desert Band of Lake 
Superior Chippewa Indians as a distinct 
Indian tribe, to clarify the status of mem- 
bers of the band, to provide trust lands to 
the band, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 
By Mr. DINGELL: 
H.R. 3195. A bill to provide for a General 
Accounting Office investigation and report 
on conditions of displaced Polish nationals, 
to provide certain rules of the House of 
Representatives and of the Senate with re- 
spect to review of the report, to provide for 
the temporary stay of detention and depor- 
tation of certain Polish nationals, and for 
other purposes; jointly, to the Committees 
on the Judiciary and Rules. 

By Mr. DINGELL (for himself, Mr. 
Thomas A. Luken, Mr. Bruce, Mr. 
Madigan, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Bryant, 
Mr. Ford of Michigan, Mr. Hall of 
Texas, Mr. Schuette, Mr. Carr, Mr. 
Pursell, Mr. Slattery, Mr. Huck- 
aby, Mr. Towns, Mr. Oxley, and Mr. 
Coats): 
H.R. 3196. A bill to amend the Clean Air 
Act to ensure the safety of consumers in is- 
suing regulations concerning mobile sources; 
to the Committee on Energy and Com- 
merce. 

By Mr. DORGAN of North Dakota 
(for himself and Mr. Moody): 
H.R. 3197. A bill to promote and protect 
taxpayer rights, and for other purposes; to 
the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. EDWARDS of California: 
H.R. 3198. A bill to amend title 5, United 
States Code, with respect to the definition 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23077 



of the term "law enforcement officer" 
under the Federal employees' retirement 
system; to the Committee on Post Office 
and Civil Service. 

By Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma (for 
himself, Mr. Michel, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
Cheney, Mr. Lewis of California, 
Mr. Kemp, Mrs. Martin of Illinois, 
Mr. Madigan, Mrs. Johnson of Con- 
necticut, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hunter, 
Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Boulter, Mr. 
Gingrich, Mr. Mack, Mr. We^don, 
Mr. Lungren, Mr. Solomon, Mr. 
Skeen. Mr. Buechner, Mr. Stump, 
Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Davis of Illinois, 
Mr. Tauke, Mr. Armey, Mr. Weber, 
Mr. Walker, Mr. Porter, Mr. 
Parris, Mr. Lowery of California, 
Mr. McCandless, Mr. Thomas of 
California, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Brown 
of Colorado, Mr. Hefley, Mr. 
Slaughter of Virginia, Mr. Wortley, 
Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. 
Prenzel, Mr. Nielson of Utah, Mr. 
Pashayan, Mr. Young of Florida, 
Mr. Rowland of Connecticut, Mr. 
Taylor, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Roth, Mr. 
Denny Smith, Mr. Bliley, Mr. 
Coble, Mr. Pursell, Mr. Upton, Mr. 
Inhofe, Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Livingston, 
Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Saiki, Mr. Davis of 
Michigan, Mr. Coleman of Missouri, 
Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. 
Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Saxton, Mr. Goodling, Mr. Robert 
F. Smith, Mrs. Vucanovich, Mr. 
Bilirakis, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Craig, 
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dornan of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Kyl, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. 
Henry, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Bateman, 
Mr. Gregg, Mr. Schuette, Mr. 
Gradison, Mr. Ireland, Mr. Rogers, 
Mr. Dreier of California, Mr. Lujan, 
Mr. Duncan, Mr. Crane, Mr. Miller 
of Ohio, and Mr. McDade): 
H.R. 3199. A bill providing for any bill or 
joint resolution making continuing appro- 
priations that is agreed to by both Houses 
of Congress in the same form to be enrolled 
as a series of separate bills or resolutions for 
presentation to the President; to the Com- 
mittee on Rules. 

By Mr. MICHEL (for himself, Mr. 
Brown of Colorado, Mr. Badham, 
Mr. Baker, Mr. Ballenger, Mr. 
Bartlett, Mr. Bateman, Mrs. Bent- 
ley, Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Bliley, Mr. 
Boulter, Mr. Broomfield, Mr. 
Buechner, Mr. Bunning, Mr. 
Burton of Indiana, Mr. Chandler, 
Mr. Cheney, Mr. Coats, Mr. Coble, 
Mr. Combest, Mr. Courter, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. Daub, Mr. Davis of Illi- 
nois, Mr. DeLay, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
Dickinson, Mr. DioGuardi, Mr. 
Dreier of California, Mr. Duncan, 
Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma, Mr. 
Fish, Mr. Frenzel, Mr. Gallo, Mr. 
Gekas, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Gingrich, 
Mr. Gradison, Mr. Green, Mr. 
Gregg, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Hansen, 
Mr. Hefley, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hiler, 
Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Houghton, Mr. 
Hyde, Mr. Inhofe, Mrs. Johnson of 
Connecticut, Mr. Konnyu, Mr. Kyl, 
Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Latta, Mr. 
Lewis of California, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
Lowery of California, Mr. Donald E. 
Lukens, Mr. Madigan, Mr. Martin of 
New York, Mrs. Martin of Illinois, 
Mr. McEwen, Mr. McGrath, Mr. 
McMilllan of North Carolina, Mr. 
Miller of Ohio, Mr. Miller of 
Washington, Mr. Molinari, Mr. 



Moorhead, Mr. Morrison of Wash- 
ington, Mr. Nielson of Utah, Mr. 
Oxley, Mr. Packard, Mr. Parris, 
Mr. Pashayan, Mr. Penny, Mr. Quil- 
len, Mr. Ravenel, Mr. Regula, Mr. 
Rhodes, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Roth, Mrs. 
Roukema, Mr. Rowland of Connecti- 
cut, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Schuette, 
Mr. Shumway, Mr. Skeen, Mr. 
Denny Smith, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Mrs. Smith of Nebraska, 
Mr. Solomon, Mr. Spence, Mr. Sten- 
holm, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Swindall, 
Mr. Taylor, Mr. Thomas of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Upton, Mrs. Vucanovich, 
Mr. Walker, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. 
Wortley, Mr. Wylie, and Mr. 
Young of Alaska): 
H.R. 3200. A bill to amend title IV of the 
Social Security Act to improve the program 
of aid to families with dependent children 
by establishing a two-tier system for AFDC 
families, to require each State to establish a 
comprehensive work program with an orga- 
nized intake and registration process for 
such families, to make necessary improve- 
ments in the child support enforcement pro- 
gram, and for other purposes; jointly, to the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Educa- 
tion and Labor. 

By Mr. EDWARDS of Oklahoma (for 
himself, Mr. Michel, Mr. Lott, Mr. 
Cheney, Mr. Lewis of California, 
Mr. Kemp, Mrs. Martin of Illinois, 
Mr. Madigan, Mrs. Johnson of Con- 
necticut, Mr. Herger, Mr. Hunter, 
Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Boulter, Mr. 
Gingrich, Mr. Mack, Mr. Weldon, 
Mr. Lungren, Mr. Solomon, Mr. 
Skeen, Mr. Buechner, Mr. Stump, 
Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Davis of Illinois, 
Mr. Tauke, Mr. Armey, Mr. Weber, 
Mr. Walker, Mr. Porter, Mr. 
Parris, Mr. Fawell, Mr. Schulze, 
Mr. McCandless, Mr. Thomas of 
California, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Brown 
of Colorado, Mr. Hefley, Mr. Myers 
of Indiana, Mr. Wortley, Mr. Schae- 
fer, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Frenzel, 
Mr. Nielson of Utah, Mr. Pashayan, 
Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. Rowland 
of Connecticut, Mr. Taylor, Mr. 
Wolf, Mr. Roth, Mr. Denny Smith, 
Mr. Bliley, Mr. Coble, Mr. Pursell, 
Mr. Upton, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Kolbe, 
Mr. Livingston, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. 
Saiki, Mr. Davis of Michigan, Mr. 
Coleman of Missouri, Mr. Lightfoot, 
Mr. Bereuter, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Good- 
ling, Mr. Robert F. Smith, Mrs. 
Vucanovich, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Cal- 
lahan, Mr. Craig, Mr. DeWine, Mr. 
Dornan of California, Mr. Kyl, Mr. 
Sundquist, Mr. Henry, Mr. Gallo, 
Mr. Bateman, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Schuette, Mr. Gradison, Mr. Ire- 
land, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Dreier of 
California, Mr. Lujan, Mr. Duncan, 
Mr. Crane, Mr. Miller of Ohio and 
Mr. McDade): 
H.R. 3201. A bill to require a 60-percent 
majority vote of both Houses of Congress 
for passage of any bill or joint resolution 
making continuing appropriations; to the 
Committee on Rules. 

By Mr. PANETTA (for himself, Mr 
Ireland, Mr. Lowry of Washington 
Mr. Studds, Mr. Bonker, Mr 
Hughes, Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Badham 
Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Fas 
cell, Mr. Stark, Mr. Lowery of Call 
fornia, Mr. Beilenson, Mr. Lehman 
of California, Mr. Berman, Mr. 



Levine of California, Mr. Shaw, Mr. 
Lantos, Ms. Pelosi, and Mrs. 
Boxer): 
H.R. 3202. A bill to amend the Coastal 
Zone Management Act of 1972 regarding ac- 
tivities directly affecting the coastal zone; to 
the Committee on Merchant Marine and 
Fisheries. 

By Mr. ENGLISH (for himself, Mr. 
Bereuter, Mr. Dorgan of North 
Dakota, Mr. Johnson of South 
Dakota, Mr. Jontz, and Mr. Weber): 
H.R. 3203. A bill to amend chapter 39 of 
title 31, United States Code, to require the 
Commodity Credit Corporation to pay an in- 
terest penalty on overdue payments, and for 
other purposes; jointly, to the Committees 
on Agriculture and Government Operations. 
By Mr. ESPY (for himself, Mr. Dowdy 
of Mississippi, Mr. Whitten, Mr. 
Montgomery, Mr. Lott, Mr. Antho- 
ny, Mr. Atkins, Mr. Baker, Mr. 
Bevill, Mr. Boner of Tennessee, 
Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Beuchner, Mr. 
Clarke, Mr. Clay, Mrs. Collins, Mr. 
Ford of Tennessee, Mr. Frenzel, Mr. 
Frost, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Gray of Illi- 
nois, Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Hammer- 
schmidt, Mr. Hayes of Illinois, Mr. 
Hayes of Louisiana, Mr. Jones of 
Tennessee, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Lancas- 
ter, Mr. Leach of Iowa, Mr. Lewis of 
Georgia, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Owens 
of New York, Mr. Owens of Utah, 
Mr. Penny, Mr. Price of North Caro- 
lina, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Russo, Mr. Si- 
korski, Mr. Solarz, Mr. Tauke, Mr. 
Towns, Mr. Volkmer, Mr. Weber, 
Mr. Wheat, and Mr. Wolpe): 
H.R. 3204. A bill to establish the Mississip- 
pi River National Heritage Corridor; to the 
Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs. 
By Mr. GRANDY (for himself and Mr. 
Daub): 
H.R. 3205. A bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to allow a deduction 
for contributions to education savings ac- 
counts, and for other purposes; to the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means. 
By Mr. GUNDERSON: 
H.R. 3206. A bill to extend deadlines for 
the redemption of commodity payment-in- 
kind certificates issued by the Commodity 
Credit Corporation; to the Committee on 
Agriculture. 

By Mr. JEFFORDS (for himself and 
Mr. Boehlert): 
H.R. 3207. A bill to amend the Dairy Pro- 
duction Stabilization Act of 1983 by re- 
forming and revising the dairy promotion 
and research program; to the Committee on 
Agriculture. 

By Mr. JONTZ: 
H.R. 3208. A bill to amend chapter 30 of 
title 38; United States Code, with respect to 
the Montgomery GI bill; jointly, to the 
Committees on Veterans' Affairs and Armed 
Services. 

By Mr. LaFALCE: 
H.R. 3209. A bill to establish a system for 
regulating depository institutions to be 
known as consumer services banks, and for 
other purposes; to the Committee on Bank- 
ing, Finance and Urban Affairs. 

H.R. 3210. A bill to prohibit the Depart- 
ment of Commerce from certain activities 
which feature or convey the advantages of 
relocating U.S. businesses in a foreign coun- 
try; to the Committee on Energy and Com- 
merce. 

H.R. 3211. A bill to amend the Tariff 
Schedules of the United States; to the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means. 



23078 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



H.R. 3212. A bill relating to the customs 
treatment of motor vehicles fabricated in 
foreign trade zones with foreign-made parts; 
to the Committee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. LEVIN of Michigan (for him- 
self, Mr. Pease, and Mr. Ford of 
Michigan): 
H.R. 3213. A bill to provide for integrated 
service delivery and other demonstration 
projects to test methods of reemploying dis- 
located unemployment insurance recipients; 
jointly to the Committees on Education and 
labor and Ways and Means. 

By Mr. LEVINE of California (for 
himself, Mr. Smith of Florida, Mr. 
Gilman, Mr. Green, and Mr. Gejd- 
enson): 
H.R. 3214. A bill to restrict United States 
assistance for Panama; jointly, to the Com- 
mittees on Foreign Affairs and Banking, Fi- 
nance and Urban Affairs. 
By Mr. LUNGREN: 
H.R. 3215. A bill to designate the Federal 
building being constructed at the northwest 
corner of Ocean Boulevard and Magnolia 
Avenue in Long Beach, CA, as the "Craig 
Hosmer Federal Building"; to the Commit- 
tee on Public Works and Transportation. 

By Mr. LUNGREN (for himself, Mr. 

Lagomarsino, Mr. Oxley, Mrs. 

Boxer, and Mr. Savage): 

H.R. 3216. A bill to amend the Controlled 

Substances Act to make the anabolic steroid 

methandrosterolone a Schedule I controlled 

substance; jointly, to the Committees on 

Energy and Commerce and the Judiciary. 

By Mr. McCURDY (for himself, Mr. 
Brown of California, and Miss 
Schneider): 
H.R. 3217. A bill to establish a national 
Federal program effort in close collabora- 
tion with the private sector to develop as 
rapidly as possible the applications of super- 
conductivity to enhance the Nation's eco- 
nomic competitiveness and strategic well- 
being, and for other purposes; jointly, to the 
Committees on Science, Space, and Technol- 
ogy and Armed Services. 
By Mr. McGRATH: 
H.R. 3218. A bill to exempt from the 10 
percent additional tax on early distributions 
from qualified retirement plans certain 
amounts received as termination pay by 
New York City uniformed public safety offi- 
cers, firefighters, and sanitation workers; to 
the Committee on Ways and Means. 

H.R. 3219. A bill to repeal the provision of 
the Tax Reform Act of 1986 which elimi- 
nates the deduction for State and local sales 
taxes; to the Committee on Ways and 
Means. 

H.R. 3220. A bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 and the Employee 
Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 to 
allow the recognition of certain income to 
be deferred by New York City uniformed 
public safety officers who contribute to a 
deferred compensation plan which requires 
that all plan assets be restricted to provid- 
ing benefits under the plan; jointly, to the 
Committees on Ways and Means and Educa- 
tion and Labor. 

By Mr. MARKEY: 
H.R. 3221. A bill to amend the copyright 
law to secure the rights of authors of picto- 
rial, graphic, or sculptural works to prevent 
the distortion, mutilation, or other alter- 
ation of such works, to provide for resale 
royalties, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. MONTGOMERY: 
HJR. 3222. A bill to amend title 10, United 
States Code, to require that retired Army 
and Air Force Reserve enlisted personnel be 



advanced in grade after 30 years of service 
to the highest grade satisfactorily held 
while on active duty; to the Committee on 
Armed Services. 

By Mr. PASHA Y AN (for himself, Mr. 
Thomas of California, Mr. Lewis of 
Florida, and Mr. Badham): 
H.R. 3223. A bill to strengthen the en- 
forcement of plant and animal quarantine 
laws by authorizing the inspection of cer- 
tain mail parcels, excluding letters, in order 
to prevent the introduction of destructive 
plant and animal diseases and pests and 
noxious weeds; jointly, to the Committees 
on Agriculture and Post Office and Civil 
Service. 

By Mr. PICKLE (for himself, Mr. Jen- 
kins, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Archer, Mr. 
Wolpe, Mr. Andrews, Mr. Daub, Mr. 
Brown of Colorado, and Mr. Ford of 
Tennessee): 
H.R. 3224. A bill to amend the Internal 
Revenue Code of 1986 to provide that the 
passive loss limitation shall not apply to de- 
ductions allowable for cash out-of-pocket 
expenses for taxes, interest, and trade or 
business expenses in connection with rental 
real estate activities in which the taxpayer 
actively or materially participates; to the 
Committee on Ways and Means. 
By Mr. PURSELL: 
H.R. 3225. A bill to amend the Public 
Health Service Act to provide for the devel- 
opment of academic expertise in geriatrics 
through the establishment of centers of ex- 
cellence in geriatric research and training; 
to the Committee on Energy and Com- 
merce. 

By Mr. RODINO: 
H.R. 3226. A bill to amend the Anti-Drug 
Abuse Act of 1986 to permit certain partici- 
pants in the White House Conference for a 
Drug Free America to be allowed travel ex- 
penses, and for other purposes; to the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary. 

H.R. 3227. A bill to establish a Federal 
Courts Study Commission on Judicial Ad- 
ministration; to the Committee on the Judi- 
ciary. 

By Mr. ROE (for himself, Mr. Lujan, 
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Fawell, Mr. 
Fazio, Mr. Barton of Texas, Mr. 
Boulter, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Durbin, 
Mr. Hastert, Mr. Lewis of Florida, 
Mr. Martin of New York, Mr. 
Murtha, Mr. Pursell, Mr. Skaggs, 
Mrs. Vucanovich, Mr. Wolf, Mr. 
Ackerman, Mr. Anderson, Mr. An- 
drews, Mr. Annunzio, Mr. Armey, 
Mr. Applegate, Mr. Atkins, Mr. 
Badham, Mr. Baker, Mrs. Bentley, 
Mr. Berman, Mr. Biaggi, Mr. Bliley, 
Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bonker, Mr. 
Bosco, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Broomfield, 
Mr. Brown of Colorado, Mr. 
Bryant, Mr. Buechner, Mr. Burton 
of Indiana, Mr. Bustamante, Mr. 
Callahan, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Chap- 
man, Mr. Cheney, Mr. Coats, Mr. 
Coleman of Texas, Mrs. Collins, 
Mr. Combest, Mr. Coughlin, Mr. 
Craig, Mr. Crane, Mr. Dannemeyer, 
Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Davis of 
Michigan, Mr. de la Garza, Mr. de 
Lugo, Mr. DeLay, Mr. Dellums, Mr. 
DeWine, Mr. Dicks, Mr. Dingell, 
Mr. Dixon, Mr. Dornan of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Dreier of California, Mr. 
Duncan, Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey, 
Mr. Dymally, Mr. Edwards of Cali- 
fornia, Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma, 
Mr. English, Mr. Evans, Mr. Fei- 
ghan, Mr. Fields, Mr. Fish, Mr. 
Ford of Michigan, Mr. Frost, Mr. 



Gallegly, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Garcia, 
Mr. Gilman, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. 
Grandy, Mr. Gray of Illinois, Mr. 
Hall of Texas, Mr. Hammerschmidt, 
Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hawkins, Mr. 
Hayes of Illinois Mr. Henry, Mr. 
Herger, Mr Hiler, Mr. Holloway, 
Mr. Hopkins, Mr. Horton, Mr. 
Houghton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Hunter, 
Mr. Hyde, Mr. Johnson of South 
Dakota, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. Kasich, 
Mr. Kastenmeier, Mrs. Kennelly, 
Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Konnyu, Mr. Kyl, 
Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Lantos, Mr. 
Leach of Iowa, Mr. Leath of Texas, 
Mr. Leland, Mr. Lent, Mr. Lewis of 
California, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Lott, 
Mr. Lowery of California, Mr. 
Thomas A. Luken, Mr. Donald E. 
Lukens, Mr. Lungren, Mr. McCand- 
less, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. McCol- 
lum, Mr. McDade, Mr. McEwen, Mr. 
McGrath, Mr. McIIugh, Mr. Mack, 
Mr. Madigan, Mr. Manton, Mr. Mar- 
lenee, Mrs. Martin of Illinois, Mr. 
Martinez, Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, 
Mr. Mica, Mr. Michel, Mr. Miller 
of Ohio, Mr. Miller of Washington, 
Mr. Mineta, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Molin- 
ari, Mr. Moorhead, Mrs. Morella, 
Mr. Morrison of Washington, Mr. 
Mrazek, Mr. Nielson of Utah, Mr. 
Nowak, Ms. Oakar, Mr. Oberstar, 
Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Owens of Utah, Mr. 
Oxley, Mr. Packard, Mr. Pashayan, 
Mr. Pease, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Pickle, 
Mr. Porter, Mr. Price of Illinois, 
Mr. Quillen, Mr. Ravenel, Mr. 
Regula, Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Richard- 
son, Mr. Rinaldo, Mr. Rogers, Mr. 
Rostenkowski, Mr. Russo, Mrs. 
Saiki, Mr. Savage, Mr. Sawyer, Mr. 

SCHAEFER, Mr. SCHEUER, Mr. 

Schuette, Mr. Schumer, Mr. Sensen- 
brenner, Mr. Shumway, Mr. Skeen, 
Mr. Slaughter of Virginia, Mr. 
Denny Smith, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Mr. Smith of Texas, Ms. 
Snowe, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Stallings, 
Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Stokes, Mr. 
Stump, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. 
Sweeney, Mr. Swift, Mr. Thomas of 
California, Mr. Traficant, Mr. 
Udall, Mr. Upton, Mr. Volkmer, Mr. 
Weber, Mr. Whittaker, Mr. Wort- 
ley, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Wylie, Mr. 
Young of Alaska, Mr. Young of Flor- 
ida, Mr. Beilenson, Mr. Bereuter, 
Mr. Blaz, Mr. Brooks, Mr. Chan- 
dler, Mr. Coelho, Mr. Courter, Mr. 
Flake, Mr. Foley, Mr. Grant, Mr. 
Huckaby, Mr. Hutto, Mr. Inhofe, 
Mr. Ireland, Mr. Lowry of Washing- 
ton, Mr. Matsui, Mr. Owens of New 
York, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Roybal, Mr. 
Shaw, Mr. Solarz, Mr. Stark, Mr. 
Stratton, Mr. Tauke, Mr. Taylor, 
Mr. Torres, Mr. Towns, Mr. Vander 
Jagt, and Mr. Yates): 
H.R. 3228. A bill to authorize appropria- 
tions to the Secretary of Energy for the Su- 
perconducting Super Collider Program; to 
the Committee on Science, Space, and Tech- 
nology. 

By Mr. SHAW: 
H.R. 3229. A bill to amend the Rehabilita- 
tion Act of 1973 to provide that a drug 
abuser shall not be considered a handi- 
capped individual for purpose of that Act, 
and for other purposes; jointly, to the Com- 
mittees on Education and Labor and Post 
Office and Civil Service. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23079 



By Mr. STARK: 
H.R. 3230. A bill to combat nuclear prolif- 
eration through the imposition of trade and 
other sanctions; jointly, to the Committees 
on Foreign Affairs; Ways and Means; and 
Banking, Finance and Urban Affairs. 

H.R. 3231. A bill to amend title XVIII of 
the Social Security Act to require periodic 
competency certification of physicians as a 
condition of participation under the Medi- 
care Program; jointly, to the Committees on 
Ways and Means and Energy and Com- 
merce. 

By Mr. STENHOLM (for himself, Mr. 
Jeffords, Mr. Ackerman, Mrs. Bent- 
ley, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Bonior of 
Michigan. Mrs. Byron, Mr. Aspin, 
Mr. Carr, Mr. Chapman, Mr. 
Clinger, Mr. Dyson, Mr. Dorgan of 
North Dakota, Mr. Espy, Mr. Fish, 
Mr. Gejdenson. Mr. Gekas, Mr. 
Gilman. Mr. Goodling, Mr. Grandy, 
Mr. Gunderson, Mr. Harris, Mr. 
Hochbrueckner, Mr. Horton, Mr. 
Houghton, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Huck- 
aby, Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, 
Mr. Kastenmeier, Mr. Kleczka, Mr. 
Kostmayer, Mr. Lewis of Florida, 
Mr. Martin of New York, Mr. 
McDade, Mr. McHugh, Mr. Moody, 
Mr. Murphy, Mr. Nagle, Mr. Ober- 
star, Mr. Obey, Mr. Penny, Mr. 
Rangel, Mr. Ridge, Mr. Rose, Mr. 
Roth, Mr. Sabo, Mr. Schuette, Ms. 
Slaughter of New York, Mr. Swift, 
Ms. Snowe, Mr. Solomon, Mr. 
Stangeland, Mr. Tallon, Mr. 
Thomas of Georgia, Mr. Towns, Mr. 
Traxler, Mr. Volkmer, Mr. Walker, 
Mr. Watkins, Mr. Wortley, Mr. 
Yatron, Mr. Campbell, Mr. Carper, 
Mr. Davis of Michigan, Mrs. Ken- 
nelly, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Hopkins, 
and Mr. Stallings): 
H.R. 3232. A bill to amend the Federal 
Meat Inspection Act to require pizza prod- 
ucts containing imitation cheese and meat 
to be labeled to reflect the fact that imita- 
tion cheese is contained therein; to the 
Committee on Agriculture. 

By Mr. TOWNS (for himself, Mr. Ack- 
erman, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Atkins, 
Mr. Conyers, Mr. Dornan of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Fauntroy, Mr. Hayes of Illi- 
nois, Mr. Jacobs, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
Kostmayer, Mr. Lantos, Mr. 
Mrazek, Mr. Owens of New York, 
Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Stokes, and 
Mr. Wilson): 
H.R. 3233. A bill to amend the Animal 
Welfare Act to protect farm animals used in 
nonagricultural research and to prohibit the 
unnecessary surgery or alteration of ani- 
mals; to the Committee on Agriculture. 
By Mrs. VUCANOVICH: 
H.R. 3234. A bill entitled, "The Battle 
Mountain Pasture Restoration Act of 1987"; 
to the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs. 

By Mr. WAXMAN: 
H.R. 3235. A bill to amend the Public 
Health Service Act to revise the program of 
assistance for health maintenance organiza- 
tions; to the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce. 

By Mr. WILLIAMS: 
H.R. 3236. A bill to amend title 38, United 
States Code, to eliminate the requirement 
that the Administrator of Veterans' Affairs 
carry out a transition under which commu- 
nity-based vet centers would be moved to 
Veterans' Administration medical facilities 
and to provide standards and procedures 
governing any closures or moves of vet cen- 



ters, and for other purposes; to the Commit- 
tee on Veterans' Affairs. 
By Mr. WILSON: 
H.R. 3237. A bill to increase the size of the 
Big Thicket National Preserve in the State 
of Texas by adding the Village Creek Corri- 
dor unit, the Big Sandy Corridor unit, and 
the Canyonlands unit; to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. 

By Mr. BOUCHER (for himself, Mr. 
Cardin, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
Parris, Mr. McMillen of Maryland, 
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Fauntroy, and 
Mr. Sisisky): 
H.J. Res. 352. Joint resolution granting 
the consent and approval of Congress for 
the State of Maryland, the Commonwealth 
of Virginia, and the District of Columbia to 
amend the Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Regulation Compact; to the Com- 
mittee on the Judiciary. 

By Mr. CHAPPELL (for himself, Mr. 
Wortley, Mr. Frost, Mr. Ritter, 
Mr. Ireland, Mr. Hefner, Mr. Natch- 
er, Mr. Gray of Illinois, Mr. Daniel, 
Mr. Jones of North Carolina, Mr. 
Lewis of Florida, Mr. de Lugo, Mr. 
McDade, Mr. Barnard, Mr. Fields, 
Mr. Kostmayer, Mr. Denny Smith, 
Mr. Volkmer, Mr. Fazio, Ms. Oakar, 
Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Coelho, Mr. Ben- 
nett, Mr. Udall, Mr. Leland, Mr. 
Wolf, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Levin of 
Michigan, Mr. Bartlett, Mr. Bun- 
ning, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Bevill, Mr. 
Walgren, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Erd- 
reich, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Dwyer of 
New Jersey, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Smith 
of Florida, Mr. Young of Florida, 
Mr. Hayes of Illinois, Mrs. Patter- 
son, Mr. Valentine, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
Wilson, Mr. Horton, Mr. Hughes, 
Mr. Bustamante, Mr. Tauke, Mr. 
Lancaster, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. 
Garcia, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. 
Stump, Mr. Leach of Iowa, Mr. 
Savage, Mr. Daub, Mr. Hatcher, Mr. 
Bryant, Mr. Towns, Mr. Markey, 
Mr. Nichols, Mr. Conyers, Mr. La- 
Falce, Mr. Panetta, Mrs. Bentley, 
Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Matsui, Mr. 
Weiss, Mr. de la Garza, Mr. Neal, 
Mr. Dymally, Mr. Kasich, Mr. 
McEwen, Mr. Dyson, and Mr. Skel- 
ton): 
H.J. Res. 353. Joint resolution to designate 
the week beginning April 10, 1988, as "Na- 
tional Telecommunicators Week"; to the 
Committee on Post Office and Civil Service. 
By Mr. DORNAN of California: 
H.J. Res. 354. Joint resolution to designate 
January 14, 1988, as " 'Steamboat Willie' 
Recognition Day"; to the Committee on 
Post Office and Civil Service. 

By Mr. GILMAN (for himself, Mr. 
Leland, Mr. Taylor, Mr. Montgom- 
ery, Mr. Solomon, Mr. Solarz, Mr. 
Horton, Mr. Garcia, and Mrs. Mor- 
ella): 
H.J. Res. 355. Joint resolution designating 
September 27, 1987, as "Gold Star Mothers 
Day"; to the Committee on Post Office and 
Civil Service. 

By Mr. LUNGREN (for himself, Mr. 
Akaka, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Atkins, 
Mr. Badham, Mr. Bennett, Mrs. 
Bentley, Mr. Biaggi, Mr. Bilbray, 
Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Blaz, Mr. Boner 
of Tennessee, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
Brown of California, Mr. Bryant, 
Mr. Buechner, Mr. Burton of Indi- 
ana, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Coelho, Mr. 
Conyers, Mr. Coughlin, Mr. Coyne, 
Mr. Craig, Mr. Crockett, Mr. 



Daniel, Mr. Dannemeyer, Mr. 
Darden, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
Daub, Mr. Dellums, Mr. de Lugo, 
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Dornan of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Dreier of California, Mr. 
Edwards of Oklahoma, Mr. Fazio, 
Mr. Fields. Mr. Feighan, Mr. Flippo, 
Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Frenzel, Mr. 
Frost, Mr. Fuster, Mr. Gray of Illi- 
nois, Mr. Grant, Mr. Guarini, Mr. 
Hastert, Mr. Hatcher, Mr. Hayes of 
Illinois, Mr. Henry, Mr. Hefner, Mr. 
Holloway. Mr. Horton, Mr. Hyde, 
Mr. Jenkins, Mr. Jones of North 
Carolina, Mr. Kemp. Mr. Kennedy, 
Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. 
Lightfoot, Mr. Levin of Michigan, 
Mr. Levine of California, Mr. Living- 
ston, Mr. McCollum, Mr. McDade, 
Mr. McEwen, Mr. McGrath, Mr. 
McMillen of Maryland, Mr. Mad- 
igan, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Mazzoli, 
Mr. Mfume, Mr. Mrazek, Mr. 
Murphy, Mr. Neal. Mr. Nielson of 
Utah, Mr. Owens of New York, Mr. 
Owens of Utah, Mr. Packard, Mr. 
Pepper, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Ravenel, 
Mr. Regula, Mr. Ritter, Mr. 
Rodino, Mr. Roe, Mrs. Saiki, Mr. 
Savage, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Schuette, 
Mr. Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. 
Smith of New Jersey, Mr. Denny 
Smith, Mr. Smith of Florida, Mr. 
Sunia, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Towns, 
Mr. Valentine, Mr. Weldon, Mr. 
Wolf, Mr. Wortley, Mr. Young of 
Florida, Mr. Yatron, and Mr. 
Bliley): 
H.J. Res. 356. A joint resolution designat- 
ing October 31, 1987, as "National Child 
Identification and Safety Information Day"; 
to the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service. 

By Mr. SOLOMON: 
H.J. Res. 357. Joint resolution to provide 
for the establishment of a Joint Committee 
on Intelligence; to the Committee on Rules. 
By Mr. FOLEY: 
H. Con. Res. 175. Concurrent resolution 
providing for an adjournment of the Con- 
gress until September 9, 1987; considered 
and agreed to. 

By Mr. ATKINS (for himself, Mr. 
Solarz, Mr. Leach of Iowa, and Mr. 
Lagomarsino): 
H. Con. Res. 176. Concurrent resolution 
expressing the support of the Congress for 
the July 29, 1987, accord to resolve the 
ethnic conflict in Sri Lanka, and commend- 
ing those who have contributed to the suc- 
cess of this effort; to the Committee on For- 
eign Affairs. 

By Mrs. BOGGS (for herself, Mr. Shu- 
ster, Mr. Sharp, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. 
Foglietta, and Mr. Henry): 
H. Con. Res. 177. Concurrent resolution 
authorizing the printing of the compilation 
of materials entitled "Guide to Records of 
the U.S. House of Representatives at the 
National Archives, 1789-1989; Bicentennial 
Edition"; to the Committee on House Ad- 
ministration. 

By Mr. KONNYU (for himself, Mrs. 
Schroeder, Mr. Lujan, and Mr. 
Traficant): 
H. Con. Res. 178. Concurrent resolution to 
express the sense of the Congress concern- 
ing the equitable distribution among mem- 
bers of the Western Alliance of the defense 
burden in the Persian Gulf; to the Commit- 
tee on Foreign Affairs. 

By Mr. LEVINE of California (for 
himself, Mr. Ireland, Mr. Panetta, 
Mr. Fascell, Mr. Bennett, Mr. 



23080 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



Lowry of Washington, Mr. Studds, 

Mr. Lantos, Mr. Bonker, Mr. 

AuCoin, Mrs. Boxer, and Miss 

Schneider): 

H. Con. Res. 179. Concurrent resolution 

expressing the sense of the Congress with 

respect to the long-range energy planning of 

the United States; to the Committee on 

Energy and Commerce. 

By Mr. MICA (for himself, Mr. Fas- 
cell, Mr. Nelson of Florida, Mr. 
Pepper, and Mr. Smith of Florida): 
H. Con. Res. 180. Concurrent resolution 
entitled: "TV Marti, An Open Window of 
Liberty"; to the Committee on Foreign Af- 
fairs. 

By Mr. OWENS of New York: 
H. Con. Res. 181. Concurrent resolution 
expressing the sense of Congress with re- 
spect to violations of human rights by the 
provisional National Governing Council of 
Haiti; to the Committee on Foreign Affairs. 
By Mr. SLATTERY (for himself, Mr. 
Roberts, Mr. Glickman, Mr. Fren- 
zel, Mr. Whittaker, and Mr. 
Michel): 
H. Con. Res. 182. Concurrent resolution to 
express the sense of the Congress concern- 
ing wheat gluten export subsidies of the Eu- 
ropean Economic Community; to the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means. 

By Mr. DORGAN of North Dakota 
(for himself, Mr. Durbin, Mr. John- 
son of South Dakota, Mr. Penny, 
Mr. Stallings, and Mr. Leach of 
Iowa): 
H. Res. 254. Resolution expressing the 
sense of the House regarding the critical 
need to include the use of oxygenated fuels 
such as ethanol, produced from our abun- 
dant stocks of surplus grain, and methanol, 
which can be produced from our vast coal 
reserves, in air pollution control strategies 
required by the Federal Environmental Pro- 
tection Agency for carbon monoxide and 
ozone nonattainment; to the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce. 



MEMORIALS 

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, memo- 
rials were presented and referred as 
follows: 

183. By the SPEAKER: Memorial of the 
House of Representatives of the State of Il- 
linois, relative to inspection of chicken; to 
the Committee on Agriculture. 

184. Also, memorial of the Legislature of 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, rela- 
tive to employee welfare benefit plans; to 
the Committee on Education and Labor. 

185. Also, memorial of the General Assem- 
bly of the State of Illinois, relative to coal 
production; to the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce. 

186. Also, memorial of the General Assem- 
bly of the State of Illinois, relative to the 
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission's 
emergency evacuation planning regulations; 
to the Committee on Interior and Insular 
Affairs. 

187. Also, memorial of the General Assem- 
bly of the Commonwealth of Virginia, rela- 
tive to Metropolitan Area Transit Regula- 
tion Compact; to the Committee on the Ju- 
diciary. 

188. Also, memorial of the General Assem- 
bly of the State of Illinois, relative to 
Sidney Hillman; to the Committee on Post 
Office and Civil Service. 

189. Also, memorial of the Legislature of 
the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, rela- 
tive to the one hundred and ninety-fifth an- 
niversary of the birth of George Peabody; to 



the Committee on Post Office and Civil 
Service. 

190. Also, memorial of the House of Rep- 
resentatives of the State of Illinois, relative 
to locating the Superconducting Super Col- 
lider CSSC] in Illinois; to the Committee on 
Science, Space, and Technology. 

191. Also, memorial of the House of Rep- 
resentatives of the State of Illinois, relative 
to the term "veteran"; to the Committee on 
Veterans' Affairs. 

192. Also, memorial of the House of Rep- 
resentatives of the State of Illinois, relative 
to not to use Social Security funds to bal- 
ance the budget; to the Committee on Ways 
and Means. 

193. Also, memorial of the House of Rep- 
resentatives of the State of Illinois, relative 
to the Social Security system; to the Com- 
mittee on Ways and Means. 



PRIVATE BILLS AND 
RESOLUTIONS 

Under clause 1 of rule XXII, private 
bills and resolutions were introduced 
and severally referred as follows: 
By Mr. BUNNING: 

H.R. 3238. A bill for the relief of Maria 
Linda Sy Gonzalez; to the Committee on 
the Judiciary. 

By Mr. MURPHY: 

H.R. 3239. A bill for the relief of Laurie 
Dennison; to the Committee on the Judici- 
ary. 



ADDITIONAL SPONSORS 

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, spon- 
sors were added to public bills and res- 
olutions as follows: 

H.R. 7: Mr. Kolter. 

H.R. 9: Mr. Kolter. 

H.R. 74: Mr. Chapman. 

H.R. 136: Mr. Neal. 

H.R. 340: Mr. Badham, Mr. DeLay, Mr. 
Dornan of California, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. 
Smith of New Hampshire, and Mr. Swin- 
dall. 

H.R. 341: Mrs. Bentley, Mr. DeLay, Mr. 
Dornan of California, Mr. Kasich, Mr. 
Donald E. Lukens, Mr. Smith of New 
Hampshire, Mr. Upton, Mr. Barton of 
Texas, and Mr. Coble. 

H.R. 343: Mr. Crane. 

H.R. 432: Mr. Frost. 

H.R. 457: Mr. Johnson of South Dakota. 

H.R. 544: Mr. Moorhead and Mr. Skeen. 

H.R. 555: Mr. Owens of Utah. 

H.R. 567: Mr. Packard. 

H.R. 585: Mr. Owens of Utah. 

H.R. 622: Mr. McEwen and Mrs. Bentley. 

H.R. 639: Mr. Yates. 

H.R. 692: Mr. Schuette. 

H.R. 732: Mr. Tallon, Mr. de la Garza, 
Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Solomon, 
Mr. Atkins, Mr. Brown of Colorado, Mr. 
Donald E. Lukens, Mr. Chappell, Mr. 
Hefner, Mr. Sundquist, Mr. Espy, Mr. Ra- 
venel, Mr. Dornan of California, Mr. Bren- 
nan, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Lewis of California, 
Mr. Wolf, Mr. Emerson, Mr. Holloway, 
Mr. Rose, and Mr. McHugh. 

H.R. 792: Mr. Mineta and Mrs. Martin of 
Illinois. 

H.R. 817: Mr. Ritter. 

H.R. 820: Mr. Hopkins. 

H.R. 933: Mr. Lewis of Georgia. 

H.R. 939: Mr. Visclosky and Mr. Myers 
of Indiana. 

H.R. 956: Ms. Pelosi. 

H.R. 1008: Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma. 

H.R. 1140: Mr. Grandy. 



H.R. 1231: Mr. Wise and Mr. Hefner. 

H.R. 1244: Mr. Swift. 

H.R. 1260: Mr. Hughes. 

H.R. 1293: Mrs. Collins. 

H.R. 1336: Mr. Kolter and Mr. Visclo- 
sky. 

H.R. 1352: Mr. Owens of Utah. 

H.R. 1384: Mr. Dixon, Mr. McDade, Mr. 
Gordon, and Mr. Martinez. 

H.R. 1395: Mr. Hyde, Mr. Roe, Mr. La- 
Falce, Mrs. Boxer, and Mr. Kasich. 

H.R. 1516: Mr. Johnson of South Dakota, 
Mr. McMillan of North Carolina, Mr. 
Donald E. Lukens, Mr. Coughlin, Mr. 
Waxman, Mrs. Schroeder, Mr. Ridge, Mr. 
Cooper, Mr. Traxler, Mr. Evans, Ms. 
Slaughter of New York, Mr. Sabo, Mr. 
McCloskey, Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey, Mr. 
Lehman of California, Mr. Dorgan of North 
Dakota, Mr. Jontz, Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Mav- 
roules, Mr. Bosco, Mr. Brennan, Mr. 
McHugh, and Mr. Hoyer. 

H.R. 1517: Mr. Valentine, Mr. McMillan 
of North Carolina, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Kenne- 
dy, Mrs. Collins, Ms. Slaughter of New 
York, Mr. Kostmayer, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. 
Shuster, Mr. Petri, Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. 
Kolter, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Inhofe, Mr. De- 
Fazio, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Bosco, Mr. Alexan- 
der, and Mr. Borski. 

H.R. 1546: Mr. Stallings. 

H.R. 1583: Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Schuette, and 
Mrs. Bentley. 

H.R. 1707: Mr. Hall of Ohio, Mr. Pash- 
ayan, Mr. Rose, Mr. Owens of Utah, Mr. 
Kildee, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Shaw, Mr. 
Dowdy of Mississippi, Mr. Kostmayer, and 
Mrs. Vucanovich. 

H.R. 1737: Mr. Fish, Ms. Kaptur, Mr. 
Gunderson, Mr. Martinez, and Mr. 
Holloway. 

H.R. 1742: Mrs. Byron. 

H.R. 1766: Mr. Tauzin. 

H.R. 1782: Mr. Weber and Mr. Gordon. 

H.R. 1794: Mr. Bevill. 

H.R. 1807: Mr. Price of North Carolina. 

H.R. 1832: Mr. Latta. 

H.R. 1836: Mr. Jeffords. 

H.R. 1873: Mr. Dyson. 

H.R. 1874: Mr. Dyson. 

H.R. 1883: Mr. Crockett and Mr. Garcia. 

H.R. 1907: Mr. Pursell, Mr. Crockett, 
Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Jeffords. 

H.R. 1908: Mr. Pursell, Mr. Crockett, 
Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Jeffords. 

H.R. 1909: Mr. Pursell, Mr. Crockett, 
Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Jeffords. 

H.R. 1910: Mr. Pursell, Mr. Crockett, 
and Mr. Martinez. 

H.R. 1911: Mr. Pursell, Mr. Crockett, 
Mr. Martinez, and Mr. Jeffords. 

H.R. 1938: Mr. Sikorski, Mr. Borski, Mr. 
Boehlert, and Mr. Darden. 

H.R. 1957: Mr. Dannemeyer, Mr. Johnson 
of South Dakota, Mr. Porter, Mr. Kolbe, 
Mr. Bruce, Mr. Vento, Mr. Valentine, Mr. 
Swift, Mr. Brown of Colorado, and Mr. 
Kasich. 

H.R. 2018: Mr. Kolbe, Mr. Kolter, Mr. 
Clinger, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Hochbrueckner, 
Mr. Crockett, Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey, 
Mr. Martinez, Mr. Owens of New York, Mr. 
McCollum, and Mr. Smith of New Hamp- 
shire. 

H.R. 2019: Mr. McCollum, Mr. Kolter, 
Mr. Clinger, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Hoch- 
brueckner, Mr. Crockett, Mr. Dwyer of 
New Jersey, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Owens of 
New York, and Mr. Smith of New Hamp- 
shire. 

H.R. 2036: Mr. Fish. 

H.R. 2045: Mr. Jenkins. 

H.R. 2056: Mr. Guarini. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



23081 



H.R. 2131: Mr. Erdreich. Mr. Roe, Mr. 
Crockett, Mr. Miller of Washington. Mrs. 
Martin of Illinois, Mr. Mfume, and Mr. 
Bonker. 

H.R. 2138: Mr. Dyson and Mr. Martinez. 

H.R. 2148: Mr. Spence. 

H.R. 2229: Mr. Swindall, Mr. Bonker, Mr. 
Feighan, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Applegate, Mr. 
Jontz, Mr. Price of Illinois, and Mr. Jacobs. 

H.R. 2237: Mr. Kolter, Mrs. Meyers of 
Kansas, Mr. Neal, Mr. Jontz, Mr. Shumway, 
Mr. Espy, Mr. Martinez, Mr. Nielson of 
Utah, and Mr. Hefley. 

H.R. 2238: Mr. Marlenee, Mrs. Vucano- 
vich, Mr. Shumway, Mr. Gray of Illinois, 
Mr. Hansen, Mr. Wortley, Mr. Young of 
Alaska, Mr. Savage, Mr. Donald E. Lukens, 
Mr. Dornan of California, Mr. Gallegly, 
Mr. Roe, Mr. Pascell, Mr. Skeen, and Mr. 
Wolf. 

H.R. 2248: Mr. Flippo, Mr. Leland, Mr. 
Espy, and Mr. Annunzio. 

H.R. 2260: Mr. Flippo, Mr. Leath of 
Texas, Mr. DePazio, Mr. Boner of Tennes- 
see, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Kemp, Mr. Weber, Mr. 
Morrison of Connecticut, Mr. Roemer, Mr. 
Cooper, and Mr. Hastert. 

H.R. 2278: Mr. Porter. 

H.R. 2328: Mr. Neal and Mr. Smith of 
Texas. 

H.R. 2384: Mr. Perkins, Mr. Boucher, 
Mr. Martinez, Mr. Wolpe, Mr. Penny, Mr. 
Towns, Mr. Robinson, Mr. Levine of Cali- 
fornia, Mr. Foley, Mr. Kolter, Ms. Snowe, 
Mr. Mavroules, Mr. Chapman, Mr. Edwards 
of California, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Fazio, Mr. 
Harris, Mr. Hammerschmidt, Mr. Solarz, 
Mr. Akaka, Mr. DeWine, Mr. English, Ms. 
Kaptur, Mrs. Collins, Mr. Markey, Mr. 
Clay, Mr. Roe, Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Daub, 
Mr. Kildee, Mr. Gordon, Mr. Conyers, Mr. 
Williams, Mr. Brown of California, Mr. 
Hatcher, Mr. Bonker, Mr. Biaggi, Mr. Bil- 
bray, Mr. Savage, Mr. Pepper, Mr. Frost, 
and Mr. Mineta. 

H.R. 2404: Mr. Miller of California, Mr. 
Foglietta, Mr. Wilson, Mr. Schulze, Mr. 
Chapman, Mr. Lagomarsino, Ms. Slaughter 
of New York, Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Solarz, 
Mr. DeWine, Mr. Feighan, Mr. Panetta, 
Mrs. Collins, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Stokes, and 
Mr. Towns. 

H.R. 2517: Mr. Owens of Utah and Mr. 
Ridge. 

H.R. 2522: Mr. Leland, Ms. Slaughter of 
New York, Mr. Vento, Mr. Brown of Cali- 
fornia, Mr. Jeffords, and Ms. Pelosi. 

H.R. 2532: Mr. Gilman. 

H.R. 2538: Mrs. Bentley, Mr. Emerson, 
and Mr. Price of North Carolina. 

H.R. 2647: Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Martinez, Mr. 
Moody, Mr. Towns, Mr. Solarz, Mr. Ben- 
nett, Mr. Clay, Mr. Savage, Mr. Frost, Ms. 
Oakar, and Mr. Weldon. 

H.R. 2666: Mr. Fascell, Mr. Morrison of 
Connecticut, Mr. Sabo, Ms. Slaughter of 
New York, Mrs. Roukema, and Mr. Gunder- 
son. 

H.R. 2670: Mr. Clinger, Mr. Hopkins, and 
Mr. Owens of Utah. 

H.R. 2707: Mr. Roe, Mr. Mollohan, Mr. 
Bonior of Michigan, Mr. Hayes of Louisi- 
ana, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Rinaldo, 
Mr. Price of North Carolina, Mr. Lehman of 
California, Mr. McMillen of Maryland, and 
Mr. Markey. 

H.R. 2750: Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Atkins, Mr. 
Fish, Mr. Dixon, and Mr. Jontz. 

H.R. 2787: Mr. Owens of Utah and Mr. 
Ridge. 

H.R. 2792: Mr. Campbell. 

H.R. 2800: Mr. Vento, Mr. Guarini, Mr. 
Donnelly, Mr. Frank, Mr. Schumer, Mr. St 
Germain, Mr. Lowry of Washington, Mr. 



Akaka, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Regula, Mr. 
Stokes, Ms. Oakar, Mr. Rangel, Mr. 
Tauzin, Mr. Owens of Utah, Mr. Broom- 
field, Mr. Vander Jagt, Mr. Downey of New 
York, Mr. Glickman, Mr. McHugh, Mr. 
Dymally, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. 
Mrazek, Mr. Obey, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Haw- 
kins, Mr. Evans, Mr. Walgren. Mr. Murtha, 
Mr. Rinaldo, and Mr. Livingston. 

H.R. 2801: Mr. Donald E. Lukens. 

H.R. 2844: Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey. 

H.R. 2858: Mr. Savage, Mr. Kastenmeier, 
Mr. Kleczka, Mr. Yates, Mr. Frank, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hughes, Mr. 
Tauke, Mr. Michel, and Mr. Obe'". 

H.R. 2862: Mr. Robert F. Smith, Mr. 
Wilson, Mr. Rose, Mr. Roemer, Mr. Stal- 
lings, Mrs. Collins, Mr. Holloway, Mr. 
Kolbe, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Valentine, Mr. de 
la Garza, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Upton, and Mr. 
Carr. 

H.R. 2879: Mr. Owens of Utah. 

H.R. 2883: Mr. Miller of California, Mr. 
Weiss, Mr. Rodino, Mr. Vento, and Mr. 
Moody. 

H.R. 2884: Mr. Slaughter of Virginia. 

H.R. 2934: Mr. de Lugo, Mr. Ackerman, 
Mr. Rose, Mr. Foglietta, Mr. Frost, and 
Mr. Boehlert. 

H.R. 2965: Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Oxley, 
Mr. Rhodes, Mr. Coats, Mrs. Martin of Illi- 
nois, Mr. Swindall, Mr. Emerson, Mr. 
Schaefer, Mr. Fawell, Mr. Goodling, Mr. 
Holloway, and Mr. Porter. 

H.R. 2969: Mr. Hughes, Mr. Vento, Mr. 
Dwyer of New Jersey, and Mr. Kasten- 
meier. 

H.R. 2977: Mr. Neal, Mr. Smith of Florida, 
Mr. Darden, Mr. Fazio, Mr. Lightfoot, Mr. 
Clinger, Mr. English, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. 
Whittaker, Mr. Owens of Utah, Mrs. Bent- 
ley, Mr. Weber, Mrs. Saiki, Mr. Harris, Mr. 
Gingrich, Mr. Ford of Tennessee, Mr. 
Hughes, Mr. Nichols, Mr. Gibbons, Mr. 
Gradison, Mrs. Smith of Nebraska, Mr. Jen- 
kins, Mr. Callahan, Mr. Penny, Mr. Swift, 
Mr. Jontz, Mr. Guarini, Mr. McMillan of 
North Carolina, Mr. Wolf, Mr. Mazzoli, Mr. 
Lewis of Florida, Mr. Skeen, Mr. Martin of 
New York, Mr. Morrison of Washington, 
Mr. Hubbard, Mr. Upton, and Mr. Thomas 
of California. 

H.R. 2979: Ms. Kaptur, Mrs. Collins, Mr. 
Espy, Mr. Lehman of Florida, Mr. Lagomar- 
sino, Mrs. Saiki, and Mr. Upton. 

H.R. 2982: Mr. Lightfoot. 

H.R. 2985: Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Montgomery, 
Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Horton, Mr. Weiss, 
Mr. Owens of Utah, Mr. Rinaldo, Mr. Roe, 
Mr. Hughes, and Mr. Kolter. 

H.R. 2992: Mr. Atkins, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. 
Carr, Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey, Mr. Fazio, 
Mr. Ford of Michigan, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. 
Hughes, Mr. Kolter, Mr. Neal, Mr. Ober- 
star, Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Pepper, Mr. Price of 
North Carolina, Mr. Swift, and Mr. Trafi- 
cant. 

H.R. 3005: Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Mrazek, 
Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. Gilman, and Mr. 
Savage. 

H.R. 3013: Mr. Boucher, Mr. Denny 
Smith, Mr. Rahall, Mr. Fauntroy, Mr. 
Watkins, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, and Mr. 
Savage. 

H.R. 3047: Mr. Burton of Indiana, Mr. 
Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Davis of Illinois, Mr. 
Neal, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mrs. Bentley, Mr. 
Porter, Mr. Badham, and Mr. Smith of Flor- 
ida. 

H.R. 3049: Mr. Ford of Michigan, Mr. 
Studds, Mr. Bates, Mr. Howard, Mrs. 
Boxer, Mr. Towns, Mr. Mrazek, Mr. Wolpe, 
Mr. Savage, Mr. Eckart, and Mr. Morrison 
of Connecticut. 



H.R. 3051: Mr. Howard, Mr. Hammer- 
schmidt, Mr. Anderson, Mr. Shuster, Mr. 
Roe, Mr. Clinger. Mr. Oberstar, Mr. Mol- 
inari, Mr. Nowak, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Rahall, 
Mr. McEwen, Mr. Applegate, Mr. Sund- 
quist, Mr. de Lugo, Mr. Packard, Mr. 
Savage, Mr. Boehlert, Mr. Sunia, Mr. 
Gallo, Mr. Bosco, Mr. Hastert, Mr. 
Borski, Mr. Upton, Mr. Kolter, Mr. Valen- 
tine, Mr. Towns, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Row- 
land of Georgia. Mr. Wise, Mr. Gray of Illi- 
nois, Mr. Visclosky, Mr. Traficant, Mr. 
Chapman, Mr. Lancaster, Ms. Slaughter of 
New York, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. DeFa- 
zio, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Skaggs, Mr. Hayes of 
Louisiana, Mr. Perkins, Mr. Kastenmeier, 
Mr. Bustamante, and Mr. MacKay. 

H.R. 3054: Mr. Davis of Illinois and Mr. 
Savage. 

H.R. 3057: Mr. Kolter, Mr. Savage, Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Foglietta, and Mr. Trafi- 
cant. 

H.R. 3064: Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Acker- 
man, Mr. Savage, Mr. Staggers, and Mr. 
Penny. 

H.R. 3069: Mr. Henry. 

H.R. 3071: Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. 
Lantos, Mr. Kastenmeier, and Mr. Morri- 
son of Connecticut. 

H.R. 3075: Mr. Hansen, Mr. Dymally, Mr. 
Myers of Indiana, Mr. Schaefer, Mr. Davis 
of Illinois, Mr. Lagomarsino, and Mr. Pash- 
ayan. 

H.R. 3078: Mrs. Vucanovich and Mr. De- 
Fazio. 

H.R. 3134: Mr. Grant, Mr. Gibbons, and 
Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey. 

H.R. 3180: Ms. Kaptur. 

H.J. Res. 8: Mr. Gallegly. 

H.J. Res. 112: Mr. Bates. 

H.J. Res. 206: Mr. Daub, Mr. Miller of 
Washington, and Mr. Bliley. 

H.J. Res. 224: Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Whit- 
taker, Mr. Rowland of Connecticut, Mr. 
DeFazio, Mr. Wheat, Mr. Gilman, Mr. Neal, 
Mr. Lowry of Washington, Mr. Henry, Mr. 
Badham, Mr. Crockett, Mr. Wylie, Mr. 
Skeen, Mr. Lewis of Georgia, Mr. Fogli- 
etta, Mr. Foley, Mr. Blaz, Mr. Biaggi, Mr. 
Rodino, Mr. Wyden, Mr. Slaughter of Vir- 
ginia, Mr. Hertel, Mr. Perkins, Mr. 
Markey, Mr. Fauntroy, and Mr. Montgom- 
ery. 

H.J. Res. 227: Mr. Bustamante, Mr. Roe, 
Mr. Berman, Mr. Morrison of Connecticut, 
Mr. Coleman of Missouri, Mr. Torricelli, 
and Mr. Shaw. 

H.J. Res. 228: Mr. Goodling, Mr. Emer- 
son, Mr. Hertel, Mr. Clinger, Mr. Haw- 
kins, Mr. Bustamante, Mr. Mfume, Mr. 
Gekas, Mr. Solarz, and Mr. Sundquist. 

H.J. Res. 243: Mr. Daniel, Mr. Feighan, 
Mr. Leland, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. LaFalce, 
Ms. Pelosi, Mr. Price of Illinois, Mr. Ober- 
star, Mr. Kildee, Mr. Bryant, Mr. Florio, 
and Mr. Donnelly. 

H.J. Res. 255: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Clinger, 
Mr. Fascell, Mr. Gephardt, Mr. Gregg, Mr. 
Lott, Mr. Packard, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Carr, 
and Mr. Florio. 

H.J. Res. 257: Mr. Harris, Mr. Tauke, 
Mrs. Bentley, Mr. Lewis of Florida, Mr. 
Lehman of Florida, Mr. Flippo, Mr. Savage, 
Mr. Wolf, Mr. Boner of Tennessee, Mr. 
Garcia, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Huckaby, Mr. 
Leland, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Gordon, Mr. 
Manton, Mr. Lancaster, Mr. Roe, Mr. Gray 
of Illinois, Mr. McDade, Mr. Davis of Michi- 
gan, Mr. Biaggi, Mr. Dorgan of North 
Dakota, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Fazio, Mr. 
Yatron, Mr. Horton, Mr. Hatcher, Mr. 
Thomas of Georgia, Mr. Bevill, Mr. Levin 
of Michigan, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Martinez, 
Mr. Hefner, Mr. Frost, Mr. Johnson of 



23082 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— HOUSE 



August 7, 1987 



South Dakota, Ms. Slaughter of New York, 
Mr. Smith of Florida, Mrs. Patterson, Mr. 
Chapman, Mr. Erdreich, Mr. Carper, Mr. 
McEwen, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Lungren, Mrs. 
Boxer, Mr. Crockett, Mr. Stenholm, Mr. 
Kolter, Mr. Wilson, Mrs. Meyers of 
Kansas, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Weiss, Mr. 
Hall of Texas, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Synar, Mr. 
Fields, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Kasich, Mr. Bal- 
lenger, Mr. Rangel, Mrs. Kennelly, Mr. 
Smith of New Hampshire, Mr. Saxton, Mr. 
Dwyer of New Jersey, Mr. Gonzalez, Mr. 
Goodling, Mr. St Germain, Ms. Kaptur, 
Mr. Ray, Mr. Lipinski, Mr. Fish, Mr. Stag- 
gers, Mr. Darden, Mr. Flake, Mr. Chappell, 
Mr. LaFalce, Mr. Neal, Mr. Owens of New 
York, Mr. Swindall, Mr. Stark, Mr. Busta- 
mante, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. Akaka, Mr. 
Atkins, Mr. Baker, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. 
Gilman, Mr. Gingrich, Mr. Nowak, Mr. 
Roemer, Mr. Shaw, Mr. Sunia, and Mr. 
Tauzin. 

H.J. Res. 266: Mr. McEwen, Mr. Gaydos, 
Mr. Kastenmeier, Mr. Moakley, Mr. Per- 
kins, Mr. Synar, Mr. Courter, Mr. An- 
drews, Mr. Bennett, Mr. Bosco, Mr. Bou- 
cher, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Coleman of Texas, Mr. 
Durbin, Mr. Dyson, Mr. Evans, Mr. Fas- 
cell, Mr. Frank, Mr. Gekas, Mr. Hawkins, 
Mr. Kasich, Mr. Lehman of California, Mr. 
Levine of California, Mr. Lantos, Mr. 
McCollum, Mr. MacKay, Mr. Matsui, Mr. 
Mineta, Mr. Moody, Mr. Oberstar, Mr. 
Olin, Mr. Ortiz, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Pursell, 
Mr. Richardson, Mr. Rowland of Georgia, 
Mr. Skelton, Mr. Tallon, Mr. Visclosky, 
Mr. Wheat, Mr. Wolpe, Mr. DeFazio, Mr. 
Flake, Mr. Ritter, Mr. Torres, Mr. Bate- 
man, Mr. Bilirakis, Mr. Crane, Mr. Leland, 
Mr. Lowry of Washington, Mr. Mavroules, 
Mr. Packard, Mr. Saxton, Mr. Madigan, Mr. 
Rahall, Mr. Bates, Mr. Ackerman, Mr. 
Chandler, Mr. Gejdenson, Mr. Brown of 
California, Mr. Emerson, and Mr. Thomas 
A. Luken. 

H.J. Res. 287: Mr. Weiss. 

H.J. Res. 297: Mr. Stenholm, Mr. Mad- 
igan, Mr. Marlenee, Mr. Jones of Tennes- 
see, Mr. Panetta, Mr. Stangeland, Mr. 
Thomas of Georgia, Mr. Brown of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Lantos, Mr. Lagomarsino, and Mr. 
Watkins. 

H.J. Res. 300: Mr. Hansen, Mr. Hayes of 
Louisiana, Mr. Hefner, Mr. Holloway, Mr. 
Howard, Mr. Hoyer, Mr. Hutto, Mr. Jones 
of North Carolina, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. 
Lantos, Mr. Lewis of California, Mr. Lewis 
of Florida, Mr. Kanjorski, Mr. Lungren, 
Mr. McCloskey, Mr. McEwen, Mr. Martin 
of New York, Mr. Moorhead, Mr. Murphy, 
Mr. Nichols, Mr. Packard, Mr. Panetta, Mr. 
Pashayan, Mr. Porter, Mr. Pursell, Mr. 
Robinson, Mr. Russo, Mr. Saxton, Mr. 
Schumer, Mr. Stokes, Mr. Sunia, Mr. 
Tallon, Mr. Tauke, Mr. Thomas of Georgia, 
Mr. Torricelli, Mr. Traficant, Mr. Valen- 
tine, Mr. Vander Jagt, Mr. Yates, and Mr. 
Young of Alaska. 

H.J. Res. 318: Mr. Owens of New York, 
Mr. Dwyer of New Jersey, Mr. Frost, Mr. 



Rahall, Mr. Murphy, Mr. Neal, Mr. de la 
Garza, Mr. Biaggi, Mr. Staggers, Mr. 
Matsui, Mrs. Collins, Mr. Bateman, and 
Mr. Oxley. 

H.J. Res. 328: Mr. Atkins, Mr. Cardin, 
Mr. Mfume, and Mrs. Bentley. 

H.J. Res. 329: Mr. Weiss. 

H.J. Res. 332: Mr. Atkins, Mr. Bartlett, 
Mrs. Bentley, Mrs. Boxer, Mr. Borski, Mr. 
Bryant, Mr. Bruce, Mr. Clay, Mr. Clinger, 
Mr. Coats, Mr. Coelho, Mr. Coleman of 
Missouri, Mr. Conyers, Mr. Daub, Mr. 
Dwyer of New Jersey, Mr. Erdreich, Mr. 
Fascell, Mr. Fauntroy, Mr. Florio, Mr. 
Frost, Mr. Hall of Texas, Mr. Hamilton, 
Mr. Hatcher, Mr. Horton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. 
Kostmayer, Mr. Lagomarsino, Mr. Lantos, 
Mr. Lehman of California, Mr. Lewis of 
Florida, Mr. Lungren, Mr. McCloskey, Mr. 
Matsui, Mr. Mrazek, Mr. Neal, Mr. Skaggs, 
Mr. Smith of Florida, Mr. Synar, Mr. 
Towns, Mr. Wheat, and Mr. Wolpe. 

H.J. Res. 336: Mrs. Meyers of Kansas, Mr. 
Johnson of South Dakota, Mr. Weldon, 
Mrs. Morella, Mr. Weiss, Mr. Fields, and 
Mr. Sunia. 

H.J. Res. 338: Mr. Stangeland, Mr. Ging- 
rich, Mr. Clinger, Mr. McEwen, Mr. Sund- 
quist, Mr. Gallo, Mr. Thomas of Georgia, 
Mr. Inhofe, Mr. Young of Florida, Mr. 
Denny Smith, Mr. Molinari, Mr. Packard, 
Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Carper, Mr. Clarke, Mr. 
Clay, Mr. Coelho, Mr. Dorgan of North 
Dakota, Mr. Flake, Mr. McMillen of Mary- 
land, Mr. Miller of California, Mr. Mont- 
gomery, Mr. Owens of Utah, Mr. Pashayan, 
Mr. Regula, Mr. Richardson, Mr. Ritter, 
Mr. St Germain, Mr. Scheuer, Mr. Slat- 
tery, Mr. Spratt, Mr. Stallings, Mr. Gep- 
hardt, Mr. Bateman, and Mrs. Saiki. 

H.J. Res. 342: Mr. Conyers, Mr. Bryant, 
Mr. Bustamante, Mr. Lehman of California, 
Mr. Horton, Mr. Fazio, and Mr. Lagomar- 
sino. 

H.J. Res. 349: Mr. Edwards of Oklahoma, 
Mr. Wolpe, Mr. Swindall, Mrs. Roukema, 
Mr. Torres, Mr. Miller of Washington, Mr. 
Yatron, Mr. Studds, Mr. Lantos, Mr. 
Gilman, Mr. Garcia, Mr. Broomfield, Mr. 
Kennedy, Mrs. Saiki, Mr. Fuster, Mr. 
Dornan of California, Mr. Fauntroy, Mr. 
Gonzalez, Mr. Weiss, Mr. Solomon, and Mr. 
Morrison of Connecticut. 

H. Con. Res. 6: Mr. DeLay. 

H. Con. Res. 41: Mr. DeWine and Mr. 
Smith of New Hampshire. 

H. Con. Res. 97: Mr. Kemp and Mr. Gregg. 

H. Con. Res. 126: Mr. Wolf, Mr. Bliley, 
and Mr. de Lugo. 

H. Con. Res. 133: Mr. Pepper, Mr. Synar, 
Mr. Garcia, Mr. Duncan, Mr. Evans, and 
Mr. Clarke. 

H. Con. Res. 138: Mr. Guarini and Mr. 
Jeffords. 

H. Con. Res. 157: Mr. Akaka, Mr. AuCoin, 
Mr. Badham, Mr. Bilbray, Mr. Bilirakis, 
Mr. Bliley, Mr. Bonior of Michigan, Mr. 
Bonker, Mr. Bosco, Mr. Brennan, Mr. Bus- 
tamante, Mr. Cardin, Mr. Clarke, Mr. 
Coble, Mr. Conte, Mr. Courter, Mr. Daniel, 



Mr. DeFazio, Mr. Fascell, Mr. Flake, Mr. 
Gallegly, Mr. Gray of Pennsylvania, Mr. 
Hall of Ohio, Mr. Hayes of Louisiana, Mr. 
Houghton, Mr. Hughes, Mr. Hutto, Mr. 
Jontz, Mr. Konnyu, Mr. Lehman of Califor- 
nia, Mr. Levin of Michigan, Mr. Lewis of 
California, Mr. Livingston, Mrs. Lloyd, Mr. 
Lowery of California, Mr. Lowry of Wash- 
ington, Mr. Thomas A. Luken, Mr. Donald 
E. Lukens, Mr. McMillen of Maryland, Mr. 
Martinez, Mr. Mfume, Mr. Miller of Wash- 
ington, Mr. Moody, Mr. Nagle, Mr. Parris, 
Mr. Pepper, Mr. Price of North Carolina, 
Mr. Ridge, Mr. Roe, Mr. Rogers, Mr. Rose, 
Mr. Sawyer, Mr. Schuette, Mr. Shaw, Mr. 
Shumway, Mr. Sikorski, Mr. Skaggs, Mr. 
Slaughter of Virginia, Mr. Stangeland, Mr. 
Studds, Mr. Swift, Mr. Tauzin, Mr. Visclo- 
sky, Mr. Weldon, Mr. Williams, and Mr. 
Wise. 

H. Con. Res. 173: Mr. Dellums, Mr. 
Stokes, Mr. Markey, Mr. Crockett, Mr. 
Miller of Washington, and Mr. Fauntroy. 

H. Res 114: Mr. Hyde and Mr. Whitten. 

H. Res 131. Mr. Dixon, Mr. Crockett, Mr. 
Dellums, Mr. Rangel, Mr. Owens of New 
York, Mr. Conyers, and Mr. Espy. 

H. Res. 168: Mr. Hopkins. 

H. Res. 189: Mr. Dymally, Mr. Owens of 
New York, and Mr. Foglietta. 

H. Res. 210: Mr. Ridge, Mr. McMillian of 
North Carolina, and Mr. DeLay. 

H. Res. 225: Mr. Bliley, Mr. Callahan, 
Mr. Gilman, Mr. Holloway, Mr. Hopkins, 
Mr. Lott, and Mr. Petri. 

H. Res. 252: Mr. Dreier of California, Mr. 
Daub, and Mr. Courter 



DELETIONS OP SPONSORS FROM 
PUBLIC BILLS AND RESOLU- 
TIONS 

Under clause 4 of rule XXII, spon- 
sors were deleted from public bills and 
resolutions as follows: 

H.R. 925: Mr. Bilbray. 

H.R. 3142: Mr. Martinez. 



PETITIONS, ETC. 
Under clause 1 of rule XXII, peti- 
tions and papers were laid on the 
Clerk's desk and referred as follows: 

59. By the SPEAKER: Petition of Repub- 
lican National Committee, Puerto Rico, rel- 
ative to colonial status; to the Committee on 
Interior and Insular Affairs. 

60. Also, petition of Texas Association of 
Counties, Austin, TX, relative to the Super- 
conducting Super Collider; to the Commit- 
tee on Science, Space and Technology. 

61. Also, petition of Louisiana Clerks of 
Court, relative to Medicare, Social Security, 
and related programs for State and local 
public employees; to the Committee on 
Ways and Means. 



■y>> 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 

SENATE— Friday, August 7, 1987 



23083 



(.Legislative day of Wednesday, August 5, 1987) 



The Senate met at 8 a.m., on the ex- 
piration of the recess and was called to 
order by Timothy E. Wirth, a Senator 
from the State of Colorado. 



PRAYER 

The Chaplain, the Reverend Rich- 
ard C. Halverson, D.D., offered the fol- 
lowing prayer: 

Let us pray: 

/ will sing of mercy and judgment: 
unto thee, O Lord, will I sing. I will 
behave myself wisely in a perfect way. 
When wilt thou come unto me? I will 
walk within my house with a perfect 
heart.— Psalm 101: 1-2. 

Except the Lord build the house they 
labor in vain that build it * * ".— 
Psalm 127: 1. 

Gracious Father of us all, despite 
the demands upon public servants 
during recess, grant the Senators 
grace and the will to give priority to 
home and family in these next weeks. 
Satisfy the loneliness of wives— the de- 
sires of children and youths for their 
fathers. Fill their homes and hearts 
with Your love and peace and joy. 
Make it a rich time in reconciliation, 
edification, recreation, and family 
strength. 

"The Lord bless you and keep you. 
The Lord make His face to shine upon 
you and be gracious unto you. The 
Lord lift up His countenance upon you 
and give you His peace." Amen. 



APPOINTMENT OF ACTING 
PRESIDENT PRO TEMPORE 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will please read a communication 
to the Senate from the President pro 
tempore [Mr. Stennis]. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
the following letter: 

U.S. Senate, 
President pro tempore, 
Washington, DC, August 7, 1987. 
To the Senate: 

Under the provisions of rule I, section 3, 
of the Standing Rules of the Senate, I 
hereby appoint the Honorable Timothy E. 
Wirth, a Senator from the State of Colora- 
do, to perform the duties of the Chair. 
John C. Stennis, 
President pro tempore. 

Mr. WIRTH thereupon assumed the 
chair as Acting President pro tempore. 



RESERVATION OF LEADER TIME 

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, I 
ask unanimous consent that the time 
of the majority leader and the minori- 
ty leader be reserved for their use 
later today. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Without objection, it is so or- 
dered. 



RECOGNITION OF THE ACTING 
MAJORITY LEADER 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The acting majority leader is rec- 
ognized. 



IS ARMS CONTROL ESSENTIAL 
TO OUR NATIONAL SECURITY? 

Mr. PROXMIRE. Mr. President, 
make no mistake about it. The most 
constructive and effective action the 
Congress can take to protect our na- 
tional security and maintain super- 
power peace is to advance arms con- 
trol. Arms control should be absolute- 
ly front and center in any armed serv- 
ice appropriations bill worthy of the 
name. It is true this has not always 
been the case in the past. But, oh how 
it should be. There is no way this Gov- 
ernment can preserve the peace by 
winning a nuclear arms race. We know 
that and yet that's been the prime 
focus of our so-called defense efforts 
in the past. In considering our defense 
policies in the past we have paid far 
less attention to arms control than we 
have to our military buildup and espe- 
cially to military procurement. We 
were wrong in this and we were wrong 
for many reasons. 

First, arms control provides a much 
more likely path to peace than build- 
ing a bigger military arsenal. Certainly 
in the world we live in at the present 
time we need both military strength 
and arms control agreements and 
plenty of both. Military strength rep- 
resents a powerful deterrent to any 
prospective aggressor. But with the 
advent of nuclear weapons we live in a 
world in which a superpower war will 
leave only losers. We know we can't 
build to win. President Reagan himself 
has said that no one can win a nuclear 
war. We know doomsday weapons will 
destroy civilization if not mankind. As 
both superpowers rush to match and 
surpass each other in infinitely de- 
structive hair trigger weapons we 
move toward an increasingly danger- 
ous confrontation. Somewhere, some 
time, someone is likely to make the 
fatal accident that will trigger a terri- 
ble catastrophe. Arms control repre- 
sents our best effort to bring these 
weapons under control and reduce the 
danger of rushing faster and faster 
toward war. 

Second, the military buildup that 
has throughout the years represented 



the overwhelming content of our 
armed services authorization bills has 
become the major burden of our Fed- 
eral Government. It has played a lead 
role in pushing our deficit and our na- 
tional debt to levels that seriously 
jeopardize our economy. And our econ- 
omy represents the bedrock basis of 
our military strength. How do we keep 
this immense military buildup under 
control without losing military 
strength compared to our great adver- 
sary? We can't do this unilaterally. If 
we reduce our military strength when 
the Soviet Union is building its 
strength, we lessen our deterrence. We 
invite an attack on the free world by 
superior Communist forces. But we 
can, with arms control, negotiate a 
verifiable limit on the arms race that 
will maintain the credibility of our de- 
terrent, assure the strength of our 
military forces relative to our adver- 
sary. We can do this and at the same 
time free resources to strengthen our 
economy. 

Third, the armed services authoriza- 
tion bills is exactly where arms control 
belongs. The Armed Services Commit- 
tee consists of Senators who have 
through the years built their expertise 
with respect to our military forces. 
They understand the potentiality and 
limitations of our weapons systems be- 
cause they have studied and debated 
and heard our military experts for 
weeks and months and literally many 
years. Arms control agreements should 
not be separated from the kind of 
expert competence our Armed Services 
Committee can bring to them. The 
Senate urgently needs the recommen- 
dations of the Senators who know 
what they're talking about when it 
comes to agreements that would limit 
or reduce or eliminate our military 
weapons. We need to know their views 
on the consequences of arms control 
agreements on our defense position. 
Mr. President, this Senator wants to 
know Sam Nunn's and John Warner's 
expert opinions on arms control pro- 
posals. Will the proposals strengthen 
or weaken our national defense? What 
is their precise relationship to national 
defense? Those judgments belong in 
the armed services legislation that 
comes before this body. 

For these reasons it is eminently 
necessary that the Nunn-Levin lan- 
guage passed by the Armed Services 
Committee and declaring our national 
policy on the interpretation of the 
ABM arms control treaty be included 



• This "bullet" symbol identifies statements or insertions which are not spoken by a Member of the Senate on the floor. 



91-059 0-89-3 (Pt. 17) 



23084 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



in the armed services authorization 
bill. 

It is also essential that the Senate 
have a chance to act on the mandate 
included in the House version of the 
fiscal year 1988 defense authorization 
bill that the administration comply 
with the SALT II Treaty as long as 
the Soviets continue to do so. 

It is critical that the decision of the 
House incorporated into the fiscal 
year 1988 DOD authorization bill to 
continue the moratorium on antisatel- 
lite testing be considered by the 
Senate. 

These measures in aggregate will de- 
termine whether this country has an 
effective arms control policy that will 
keep the peace and strengthen our na- 
tional security or not. They are every 
bit as vital to our national defense as 
the strength of our Armed Forces. The 
Senate should have a chance to debate 
them and include them in the bill or 
reject them. 



MORNING BUSINESS 
The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. Under the previous order, there 
will now be a period for the transac- 
tion of morning business not to extend 
beyond the hour of 10 a.m. with Sena- 
tors permitted to speak therein. 
The Senator from South Dakota. 
Mr. DASCHLE. Thank you, Mr. 
President. 



DOD AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
ARMS CONTROL 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I 
commend the leadership for their will- 
ingness to extend morning business a 
little bit longer this morning to give us 
an opportunity to discuss something 
of great importance to many. I did not 
expect that the hour would be such, 
but I am glad that it is and I am glad 
that we have the opportunity to do 
what many of us wanted to do for 
some time and that is discuss an issue 
of great import not only to Members 
on the floor here this morning but to 
so many people who watch with great 
interest the deliberations of this body, 
the decisions made here with regard to 
arms control, defense policy and long- 
range international relationships with 
our adversaries as well as our allies. 

Tomorrow may be the beginning of 
the August recess. I suppose if one is 
going to analyze or find some analogy 
to the August recess it is a little bit 
like an all-star break. It is an opportu- 
nity for everyone to assess how far we 
have come, the record as it looks half- 
way through the season, an opportuni- 
ty to assess the players, the agenda, 
the record, and take some stock as to 
how far we've come and how willing 
we have been to address some of the 
more controversial and substantive 
issues of the day. 



I have watched all of what I have 
seen over the last 7 months with great 
interest. Finally, I have been frustrat- 
ed at times. I have been fascinated at 
times. I watched with enthusiasm, I 
suppose, like when a carpenter comes 
on to the worksite for the first day all 
decked out with new equipment, new 
tools, a new uniform ready to go to 
work, but frustrated, frankly, by those 
contractors who are still trying to 
decide the shape and the size of the 
rooms. 

And so we see a Senate with enthusi- 
astic workers, with people willing to 
work and address and confront the 
issues that are so important to so 
many of us and yet thwarted each and 
every time many of these issues come 
before the body. 

I have immense admiration for our 
majority leader and, frankly, for the 
leadership on both sides as we try to 
work out the many differences that 
exist. The majority leader has done an 
admirable job, an incredible job, as we 
have tried to take the differences, 
heartfelt, emotional differences at 
times, bring them to the floor, and 
work out the many parliamentary and 
procedural obstacles that exist on a 
day-to-day basis. It is a contest of wits, 
frankly, between those who would like 
to see the will of the majority ulti- 
mately have its day and those who do 
not. 

It seems to me, as I sit on the floor 
and watch with the enthusiasm I hold 
for this body, that it is a match of 
wits. The question is: Can you still 
pass legislation after you put every 
imaginable roadblock in the path of 
the legislative process? As I watch, I 
become even more convinced that ulti- 
mately if something does pass the U.S. 
Senate it has passed very conceivable 
test of practicality and ingenuity and 
ultimately determination. Frankly, 
maybe that is a fair test. 

Some would take great comfort in 
knowing this, in watching what I have 
watched for the last 7 months. 

With all of those obstacles, and with 
all of the many difficulties, we have 
established a record of some import 
here— the Federal savings and loan 
bill, the highway bill, the Clean Water 
Act, trade legislation, supplemental 
appropriations, and scores of other 
bills that have great significance to 
people all over the country. 

But as we take stock on this, per- 
haps the last day before the August 
recess, there is much that has not 
passed that frustrates this Senator. 
And to the dismay of some and per- 
haps the relief of others, perhaps at 
the very top of the list would be cam- 
paign finance reform and the appro- 
priations bills. And while I can under- 
stand why on each of these pieces of 
legislation we ultimately have not met 
those difficult criteria by which one 
judges the feasibility and ultimately 
the success of the legislative process as 



we address those bills, perhaps most 
inexplicably of all is the defense au- 
thorization bill this year. 

What does it say about a process 
when a bill directly related to the mili- 
tary security of this Nation is being 
undermined not because of its author- 
ized level of spending, not because of 
some new weapons system, not be- 
cause of the size, shape, or future di- 
rection of the bill itself, out simply for 
one— one— provision? And that provi- 
son simply says: Look, if you are going 
to change the ABM Treaty, if you are 
going to change the scope and the di- 
rection that we take in something that 
we sign with another country, and if 
you are going to spend money related 
directly to the change of that scope, 
come to Congress and ask us. Talk to 
us. That is all we ask. 

That one provision is what keeps us 
this morning, as it has for months, 
from taking up one of the most impor- 
tant bills of all this year. That bill di- 
rectly related to the military security 
of this Nation. 

It does not say, by doing so, that we 
have taken any position on the treaty 
itself. It does not say, by doing so, that 
for some reason we are going to 
thwart what the President wants to 
do. It takes the position that Congress 
has the right to consider, as we have 
the right to consider any piece of legis- 
lation dealing with money, the oppor- 
tunity here to discuss and debate 
openly whether or not spending the 
money that way is a good idea or not. 

Of all the issues not being debated 
this year, I must say this is the most 
inexplicable of all. 

What would be said if the roles had 
been reversed? What would we have 
heard from those organizations and 
those Members who hold the view 
that we cannot take the defense au- 
thorization bill here to the Senate to 
decide the things that we are supposed 
to decide and in due process? What 
would have been their cry had we, 
those of us discussing this issue today, 
failed to bring that bill to the floor; if 
it were us who held up the authoriza- 
tion of all new defense systems; if it 
had been us who were holding up pay 
raises for military personnel; if it were 
us who were stopping the authoriza- 
tion of military construction? 

Ironically, I understand all of this 
obstruction is being done in the name 
of arms control. That is what is amaz- 
ing. For the sake of the talks currently 
underway with INF, we cannot say 
anything about ABM or anything else 
at this point; that we have to be mum 
with regard to discussions that may in 
some obscure way undermine the 
President's ability to negotiate. 

Well, let us hope, let us hope sin- 
cerely this morning, that the INF 
agreement can be reached sometime 
very soon, that we see an agreement to 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23085 



limit or eliminate intermediate-range 
nuclear weapons very soon. 

But let us remember what the Sena- 
tor from Arkansas, [Mr. Bumpers], 
said just last week, that as we discuss 
these issues, that while we have nego- 
tiated for the last 6 years to reach an 
agreement which will cause us to 
eliminate 316 INF warheads, we are 
producing 316 new strategic warheads 
every 10 weeks. 

While this administration seeks to 
eliminate, as it should, 316 warheads, 
during the last 10 weeks alone we have 
actually constructed 316 new ones. 
While this administration seeks its 
first arms control agreement in 7 years 
to eliminate those, we have now built 
more than 12,000. Not only that, but 
we have had a net increase of more 
than 1,770 new strategic warheads 
alone. 

In fact, during this 3-hour colloquy, 
we could call it the $3 million colloquy 
because that is what we will spend on 
warheads alone— $3 million; $1 million 
an hour. In the meantime, the House 
has been told that, as we authorize the 
expenditure of these funds, we do not 
have the money for the nuts and bolts 
and the conventional equipment that 
needs to be provided to ensure the via- 
bility of those forces around the world 
that maintain the peace and security 
of this country. 

The country is told that we do not 
have the minesweeping equipment to 
take to the Persian Gulf to assure the 
security of our ships. We are told the 
National Guard does not have the 
funds necessary to modernize its 
equipment that we know it should 
have. 

This August break is now nearly 
upon us, and as we consider all of this, 
this Chamber again will go quiet for 
30 days and we will assess what we 
have done for the last 7 months. Per- 
haps it is needed. Perhaps a break of 
this kind will allow us to take stock 
and to reexamine and reconsider. 
During that 30-day period we will have 
spent another $600 million on war- 
heads. We will have built another 128 
strategic warheads. I daresay not one 
of us will be better off. 

Frankly, as one who is just starting 
his career in this body, I am very hon- 
ored and privileged to be here. I am 
not as concerned about what we take 
stock in in the August break. What I 
am concerned about is how we take 
stock in the August breaks of years to 
come. Whether or not in defense au- 
thorization, whether or not in the con- 
struction of nuclear weapons, whether 
or not on the broad range of issues 
that imperil our future when it comes 
to nuclear security, whether or not we 
have come to grips with that issue; 
and whether or not in this deliberative 
body we have found the wherewithal 
to resolve our differences and come to 
the solution that we all seek: An end 
to the nuclear war buildup, an end to 



the incredible destructibility, an end 
to the misprioritization as it exists 
today. 

Let us hope in the near future that 
this body, with all the impediments, 
with all of the obstacles that exist in 
parliamentary procedure, has the abil- 
ity to say: now is the time, before the 
end of this administration, before the 
end of the 100th Congress— time to do 
some good, time to take stock of what 
is right in this country and how we 
want the next generation to take hold. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

Mr. STEVENS addressed the Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Alaska. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I wel- 
come this dialog this morning. I have 
served now in defense appropriations 
activities for the Senate for 17 years 
and as the chairman of the Senate De- 
fense Appropriations Committee for 6 
years. Let me first point out to the 
Senate, in 5 of the last 7 years there 
has been no Defense authorization bill 
before we marked up a defense appro- 
priation bill, primarily because the 
Members of the Senate on the other 
side of the aisle did not want the au- 
thorization bill to move. 

Again this year, the bill has not 
moved. It has not moved because of 
extraneous matters that are in this 
bill or contemplated for this bill. 
Tnose extraneous matters are, in fact, 
the provision regarding the ABM 
Treaty, and the issues of SALT II com- 
pliance, Asat's, and nuclear testing. 

The great problem is that those of 
us who want this authorization bill, to 
eliminate the uncertainty as to where 
the moneys will be allocated in the ap- 
propriations process, have been frus- 
trated. 

I share the frustrations expressed by 
Members of this body on the other 
side of the aisle— that we have not 
been able to get the authorization bill 
up yet this year. But I want the 
Senate to know, and the public to 
know, that I personally have ap- 
proached many Members on the other 
side of the aisle on at least three dif- 
ferent occasions with proposals that 
would bring these issues that they 
want to debate to the floor, and which 
would let us go ahead with Defense 
authorization bills and appropriations 
bills, and not hold them hostage to 
these extraneous issues. 

The Department of Defense does 
not negotiate ABM treaties or Asat 
treaties or SALT II treaties. That is 
the State Department's job. 

We said: Put these extraneous mat- 
ters on the State Department authori- 
zation bill and we will debate them. If 
you insist on passing them, let the 
President veto them and we will 
debate them again and see whether 
you want to override the President's 
veto. But do not hold the money for 
our defense hostage. 



The answer was: No, they have got 
to go in the Defense authorization bill. 

So, we said, put them on a separate 
bill, an independent bill. Let us bring 
them up and have them stand alone 
and we will debate them on their 
merits. We will give you a time agree- 
ment, whatever you want, but let us go 
ahead with these issues, have the 
debate behind us, and then let us talk 
about Defense authorization. 

There are many problems about De- 
fense authorization this year, Mr. 
President. The budget resolution 
which passed this Senate, which I 
voted against, will reduce the Presi- 
dent's budget request for defense by 
$21 billion. That limit is too low to 
make the payments on existing equip- 
ment coming through open lines at 
the minimum rate of production and 
pay the people who are in the military 
today; let alone pay the increases in 
the retirement that we have commit- 
ted to, now, for a period of 3 years and 
the pay increases for those in the uni- 
formed services today. We know the 
number for defense is too low. Tough 
decisions will have to be made. They 
ought to be made here on the floor 
without being held up over the issue 
of ABM. 

The ABM Treaty is a 1972 treaty. 
This is the first year that this issue 
has been brought up for debate in the 
Senate— the first year. 

It is not the first year SALT II was 
brought up. I opposed SALT II from 
the very first time we were briefed in 
the classified room of the Senate and 
we were told what SALT II meant. It 
meant that, once again, the negotia- 
tors of a treaty for the United States 
looked from the western Soviet Union 
to the eastern part of the United 
States. Never once did they realize we 
had a western shore in the United 
States. 

ICBM's were discussed on the basis 
of a missile that could travel from 
Murmansk to Maine. No one ever 
thought how far is it from Kamchatka 
to Alaska, or to Seattle. 

That SALT II Treaty excluded the 
Backfire bomber, which now stands 
ready on its pads in the Russian bases 
across the Bering Strait from my 
State— said it was not a device of inter- 
continental range. 

It eliminated the SS-20. It was not 
an intercontinental device; despite the 
fact that both are in western Siberia 
and the Soviet far east and both could 
strike my State and the western part 
of Canada and the west coast of the 
United States. 

I want to tell the Senate that the 
last drop of my blood will go out of my 
body before I will see SALT II go 
before this body. It was a bad agree- 
ment when it was negotiated; the 
Senate never approved it for ratifica- 
tion, the President never ratified it, 
and it has not been adhered to by the 



23086 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



Soviets— it is not something we should 
adhere to. 

I hear so many people talk on this 
floor about us adhering to limits. Why 
do they not look at the record and see 
what the Soviets have adhered to? 
What about telemetry encryption? 
What about a prohibited second new 
type ICBM. And, in terms of the ABM, 
what about Krasnoyarsk? 

We are trying our very best to nego- 
tiate a treaty at the present time. For 
the Senate to pass language in a de- 
fense bill with a gun held at our head, 
either pass this bill with these restric- 
tions or let the defense of the United 
States go downhill; to put the Presi- 
dent in the position where he must 
take these restrictions in ABM or go 
without any money to run the Defense 
Department— I hope he stays by his 
guns and never accepts that threat— 
but to put him in that position at a 
time when we are negotiating with the 
Soviets is absolutely wrong. 

My good friend has just mentioned 
that we would eliminate 316 warheads 
in the INF negotiation. That is true. 
But the negotiation would eliminate 
over 1,300 Soviet INF warheads. That 
is what it takes to bring the present 
imbalance down to equality. We are 
prepared to eliminate whatever is nec- 
essary to get us down to a balance be- 
tween these two superpowers, to elimi- 
nate intermediate nuclear weapons 
from the world. The zero-zero option 
has now been agreed to by the Soviets. 

When we first announced it, and I 
was one of the first to support it, Mr. 
President, everybody said that is fool- 
ish. The President could never attain 
that; this is simply a propaganda ploy. 

I wish I had had notice that these 
comments would come up this morn- 
ing because I would have gone back 
and gotten out some of those articles, 
where Members of this Senate said 
zero-zero can never be achieved. Why 
does the President announce a goal 
that cannot be achieved? Such an 
offer shows that we are insincere in 
negotiating an INF treaty. 

Mr. President, I think the President 
has to have freedom in negotiations. I 
have gone to Geneva, as much or more 
than any Member of the Senate, to ob- 
serve what is going on in Geneva, and 
I have the utmost confidence in Am- 
bassadors Kampelman, Glitman, and 
Lehman. Each one of them has asked 
me to do my utmost to keep these pro- 
visions out of this bill this year. 

Why limit our negotiators at a criti- 
cal time in negotiating an INF treaty. 
The ABM language would inhibit the 
negotiations, not simply of an agree- 
ment in the defense and space arena, 
but in the START and INF negotia- 
tions as well. We actually have three 
negotiations going on at the same time 
in Geneva, and such limitations sends 
the wrong message to the Soviet nego- 
tiators. 



Mr. President, only this week in Ap- 
propriations Committee, when we got 
down to allocating money under the 
budget resolution, the members of the 
majority cut another $600 million 
from Defense. On top of what was cut 
in the budget resolution which I voted 
against, another $600 million is cut. 
That means there is certainly not 
enough money to pay the military, to 
pay the COLA's, and to pay the mili- 
tary retirees, maintain our commit- 
ments abroad, and continue our de- 
fense modernization. 

Something has to be cut. We need to 
make those hard decisions. 

So if my friends on the other side of 
the aisle want to stand up and debate 
whether those cuts should be made, I 
would welcome the opportunity. But 
let us put aside the ABM. What does 
the ABM treaty have to do with the 
Defense Department to begin with? It 
is a State Department concept. It is an 
interpretation, as a matter of fact, of 
the current adviser to the President, 
Judge Sofaer, which has led to this 
debate. He said we have the opportuni- 
ty to stay within the treaty and inter- 
pret it as the original negotiators for 
the Soviets interpret it. 

I say to the Senate that the inter- 
pretation of Agreed Statement D of 
the ABM is an important debate. I 
would welcome that debate, as I wel- 
come this one, because I have read 
every one of those documents. They 
are available to any Member of the 
Senate. I urge anyone who wants to 
debate them to read them to make 
sure we know what we are talking 
about when we enter that debate. 

But that debate should not occur on 
the authorization bill for Defense. 
This authorization bill we are talking 
about is needed primarily to guide 
those who allocate the money, not 
only here in the Congress but in the 
Department of Defense. How much 
money for naval aircraft; how much 
money for tanks; how much money for 
strategic defense initiative; how many 
people are we going to maintain in the 
standing Army, Air Force, Navy, and 
Marine Corps? Are we going to assist 
the Coast Guard in its modernization 
program? 

The issues, Mr. President, by my last 
count, number 30,000—30,000 separate 
items that could be increased or re- 
duced. Why should those items not be 
debated? They are not to be debated 
because someone now wants us to 
adhere to an interpretation of the 
ABM Treaty that the Soviets never 
agreed to, because someone wants us 
to adhere to SALT II, a treaty that 
was obsolete before it was presented to 
the President. Some people want us to 
say we cannot ever interpret the ABM 
Treaty as the Russian negotiators did 
in 1972 because to do so might acceler- 
ate the strategic defense initiative. 
Others say we should not have an Asat 
until we can prove that the Soviets 



have not gone further in perfecting 
their Asat. 

There is no denying that the Soviets 
have an antisatellite capability in orbit 
today. But we are not to increase our 
capability? The argument is made that 
we should have a moratorium on Asat 
systems because if we caught up with 
them, it is likely to stimulate them to 
get further ahead of us. 

That is the kind of debate I would 
love to have. 

Again, I want to say I will be here 
the rest of the morning and I will be 
happy to have a dialog with anyone 
who wants to discuss these issues. No 
one wants the authorization bill to 
come up more than the Senator from 
Alaska. We want the defense authori- 
zation bill passed. Those of us who 
served on the Appropriations Commit- 
tee for so many years know how many 
fights we get into here on the floor of 
the Senate when we do not have an 
authorization bill. Even after the au- 
thorization bill is passed, the people 
who serve on the Armed Services Com- 
mittee write to the Secretary of De- 
fense and say, "We never authorized 
the moneys in that appropriations bill 
and, therefore, you cannot spend it." 

It is a position that those who try to 
maintain the defense of this country 
should not have to endure. I beg the 
Senate, let us take up the authoriza- 
tion bill. Let us pass it. But let us not 
try to use it as a level to move the 
President from the position he has al- 
ready stated. Let us not use the De- 
fense authorization bill as blackmail, 
to get the administration to accept 
provisions it would not otherwise 
accept. 

If my friends on the other side of 
the aisle are serious about this, I will 
work up a time agreement today and 
we will pass a defense authorization 
bill before we leave today, if you just 
agree to leave ABM off, leave SALT II 
off, and Asat off. They have nothing 
to do with the authorization for 1988 
expenditures by the Department of 
Defense. They could be considered in 
an independent bill. They could be 
considered in the State Department 
authorization bill. They could be con- 
sidered in a number of other bills that 
come before us. But the reason they 
are being considered now is they are 
used as a justification for those who 
want to vote against the defense ex- 
penditures this year— those who want 
to reduce them further. 

At the present level of defense au- 
thorization under the Budget Act, as 
reduced by the Appropriations Com- 
mittee this week, we will come out 
with a maximum expenditure for de- 
fense at a level 5-percent less than last 
year's rate without regard for infla- 
tion. It goes considerably into the 
meat of our modernization program — 
and that is the ceiling. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23087 



To argue about SALT II, ABM, and 
Asat being included in the defense au- 
thorization bill will take us to the 
point where once again, Mr. President, 
the defense authorization bill and the 
defense appropriations bill will be put 
into the continuing resolution some- 
time after the 1st of October. The 
total amounts of money for defense 
will once again suffer. There will be 
more uncertainty in term of defense 
procurement, stretching out the pro- 
grams and increasing the cost. When 
we finally end up by putting in less 
money than is required to maintain 
the minimum rate of efficient produc- 
tion on any defense production line, it 
increases the ultimate cost. We might 
save a little money for 1988 but I can 
guarantee you if the line keeps going 
in 1989 and 1990 we will have to pay 
the piper. 

That is what has happened this 
year. That is what will continue to 
happen. I would welcome anything the 
other Senators here this morning do 
to bring up the defense authorization 
bill. But I say to them it will not come 
up so long as it contains ABM restric- 
tions. 

Mr. HARKIN addressed the Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Iowa. 

Mr. DASCHLE. Will the Senator 
yield for 30 seconds? 

Mr. HARKIN. I am delighted to 
yield. 

Mr. DASCHLE. I want to make a re- 
sponse without taking too much time 
of the Senator. 

The Senator from Alaska knows 
very well that this bill does not in- 
clude language directly dealing with 
SALT II or Asat. They may be amend- 
ments that could be offered but the 
bill, itself, does not do that. I think it 
would be a major infraction in the 
record as well as a gross misunder- 
standing of the scope of the bill to say 
that it does. 

I thank the Senator for yielding. 

Mr. HARKIN. I thank the Senator 
from South Dakota. 

I was about to address that issue. I 
listened with great attention and in- 
terest to what the distinguished Sena- 
tor from Alaska had to say. However, I 
would just echo what my colleague 
from South Dakota has said, that we 
all know that there is nothing in this 
bill that pertains to SALT II. There is 
nothing in the bill that pertains to 
Asat testing. There is something in 
the bill that pertains to the ABM 
Treaty. 

Mr. STEVENS. If the Senator will 
yield, it is in the House bill. 

(Mr. DASCHLE assumed the chair.) 

Mr. HARKIN. We are not debating 
the House bill. We are debating the 
bill passed out of the Senate Armed 
Services Committee. We are not debat- 
ing the House bill, but the bill that 
came out of our own committee. To 
say that we have to restrict ourselves 



to what is in the House bill and that 
we cannot bring up our own bill for 
debate, misses the mark as badly as an 
unaimed gun on a worthless tank. 

Mr. STEVENS. I personally offered 
a time agreement that said no ABM, 
no SALT II, and no Asat, because we 
were told those amendments were 
coming. They are in the House bill 
along with one other provision that is 
noxious to us. But we were notified 
that only two would be brought up 
before the Senate. Tell me if I am in- 
correct in talking about what debate 
will take place on the floor of the 
Senate when the authorization bill 
comes up. I think the Senator ought 
to take a look again at that offer. 
Again I make the offer today. If you 
want to debate authorization without 
these extraneous riders, we will do it 
today. 

Mr. HARKIN. Mr. President, I enjoy 
this colloquy. I do not intend to cut 
the Senator off again. I enjoy the col- 
loquy and I want it to continue. That 
is what we have been doing here. 

Mr. President, let us make clear that 
the Senator from Alaska is asking that 
we bring up the defense authorization 
bill as passed out of the Senate au- 
thorizing committee, strip it of one 
provision that the authorizing com- 
mittee put in. We are still talking 
about the ABM Treaty interpretation 
provision. They debated this provision 
in committee and they voted on it. It 
was put in there, or the amendment 
was offered, if I am not mistaken, at 
the initiative of the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Com- 
mittee, Senator Nunn of Georgia, 
along with Senator Levin of Michigan. 

My point is that it was debated and 
voted on in committee. It is part of the 
authorizing legislation. 

The Senator from Alaska says, "strip 
it out, take it out of the bill." 

Has this Senate ever insisted that 
something, duly debated and author- 
ized by an authorizing committee, be 
stripped out before we let the bill 
come to the floor? I have never heard 
of such a thing. 

Mr. President, that brings up an- 
other point. For a long time, we on 
this side of the aisle, we Democrats, 
have been painted by the Republicans 
as being soft on defense. We hear it 
when every campaign year rolls 
around, that somehow, Democrats are 
soft on defense. Not to my memory 
and not anywhere that I can find in 
the legislative history of this body, 
have the Democrats ever filibustered 
and prevented a defense authorization 
bill from coming to the floor. Even 
though we may have been opposed to 
certain parts, even though we may 
have at times thought the spending 
was too high, even though at times we 
thought the spending was misdirected 
toward Star Wars or whatever else, 
never have the Democrats taken the 
extreme position that is now being 



taken by the Republicans of filibuster- 
ing the very motion to bring it up on 
the floor and debate it. 

So, Mr. President, I ask, who is soft 
on defense? Certainly not the Demo- 
crats. We want to bring it up. We want 
to debate these issues and let the votes 
fall where they will. All we are asking 
for is an open system here, not to be 
handcuffed as the Senator from 
Alaska would want us to be, to some- 
how give up our constitutional rights, 
to give up what the people who elected 
us invested us with— that is, the 
charge to debate, to discuss, and to 
vote on these issues that are so impor- 
tant to our Nation. 

The Senator from Alaska termed it 
an "extraneous" matter to the defense 
bill. He named the three things he has 
been talking about— ABM Treaty, 
SALT II, and Asat testing. Again, I 
point out that only the ABM provision 
is now in the bill. How can it be extra- 
neous? If the authorizing committee 
put it in the bill, how can it possibly 
be extraneous? 

Second, the Senator mentioned 
SALT II. SALT II, as the Senator 
from South Dakota said, is not in the 
bill. But I would argue with the Sena- 
tor from Alaska that it is not extrane- 
ous to the debate surrounding the de- 
fense authorization bill. After all, Mr. 
President, the SALT II Treaty is inex- 
tricably involved in how much we 
spend and how we spend our defense 
dollars. The Defense Department, in 
deciding how much to request for the 
defense of this country, bases those re- 
quests on the perceived threat to this 
country. It outlines that threat and it 
says to meet that threat, we need so 
many armaments, and to purchase and 
sustain those armaments, we need so 
much money from Congress. 

SALT II is the only constraint we 
have right now on Soviet strategic nu- 
clear forces. So, Mr. President, with- 
out the SALT II limits, there is no 
limit, no limit on how much the Soviet 
strategic nuclear forces can grow. So 
to say that SALT II is somehow extra- 
neous, is separate and apart from the 
debate on the defense authorization 
bill, I think, is totally illogical because 
the SALT II constraints help define 
the threat. SALT II limits the threat, 
thereby limiting how we have to re- 
spond to that threat. Without SALT 
II, the threat can grow. Our response 
to that threat also must grow. I am 
one who says that without SALT II, 
we are going to have to respond to 
that threat. So SALT II limits define 
how much we spend and how we spend 
our defense dollars. 

I do not know how anyone can argue 
that somehow, SALT II is separate 
and apart from the debate on the de- 
fense authorization bill, that some- 
how, it ought to be in the State De- 
partment bill. Obviously, it is the 
State Department, as the Senator 



23088 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



from Alaska so correctly said, that is 
involved in the negotiations of trea- 
ties, such as SALT II. Again, I say 
whether or not we adhere to SALT II 
limits defines the threat and defines 
how we respond to that threat. That, 
in turn, defines how much we spend, 
and that is what the defense authori- 
zation bill is all about— how much we 
spend and how we spend it. 

Third, the Senator from Alaska 
mentioned Asat, the moratorium on 
testing of antisatellite weapons. Again, 
the Defense Department, in its re- 
quest to us for taxpayer money, out- 
lines the threat that is arrayed against 
us. In order to meet that threat, it 
says we need so much money. If we 
have a moratorium on antisatellite 
testing— as long as the Soviets do not 
test, we will not test— that keeps our 
satellites safe. That too would put 
limits on the threat that we face. 
Therefore, it defines how we spend 
our defense dollars. 

So, Mr. President, for the life of me, 
I cannot understand how anyone can 
argue that those three issues— ABM, 
SALT II, and Asat— are somehow to- 
tally separate and apart from the 
debate on the defense authorization 
bill. 

Mr. President, the last time we dis- 
cussed this matter, that is, the Repub- 
lican filibuster on the motion to pro- 
ceed, was on July 24. That was when 
the distinguished majority leader 
asked unanimous consent to proceed, 
and it was objected to by the Republi- 
can side. 

We have had, according to my count, 
three cloture votes and one unani- 
mous-consent request to bring up the 
defense authorization bill, but the Re- 
publicans have been blocking all at- 
tempts to proceed. We have not been 
able to get the votes to overcome their 
filibuster, and as I said, on July 24 the 
Republicans objected to the unani- 
mous-consent request to bring it up. 

We have heard a lot of talk from 
this administration about the priority 
of national defense over other issues. 
The President reminds us that defense 
is the prime responsibility of the Fed- 
eral Government. It is the first order 
of national business. It is the function 
without which all other functions are 
irrelevant. Translated by the White 
House, this imperative has come to 
mean large increases in defense spend- 
ing, even if money must be borrowed 
from foreigners and charged against 
our children, or transferred from the 
needy to the greedy in our society, 
even if our best scientists and engi- 
neers must be pulled away from help- 
ing lo protect our environment and re- 
directed to the weaponization of space. 

I have been very critical in the past 
about how narrowly administration 
supporters define the national security 
of this country, but at least I thought 
I understood their line of reasoning: 
Radical measures were required by the 



perceived urgency of the need to 
defend this country. After all, with 
"Ivan at the gates," there was not a 
moment to spare. We had to be ready. 
We had to get our defenses out there; 
we could not delay. 

Now, I must confess that I am a 
little surprised. Last May, the Republi- 
cans began a filibuster against the 
motion to proceed to debate on the de- 
fense authorization bill. 

I was even more surprised to learn 
recently that the Republican minority 
was not just making a point, but was 
quite content, apparently, to sabotage 
the congressional process by sacrific- 
ing defense authorization entirely. Be- 
cause of this filibuster, the Senate will 
not use the appropriate means of de- 
bating and deciding on issues of de- 
fense policy. It will not be able to con- 
sider these issues on their merits 
alone. The Senate will not be able to 
receive maximum benefit from the ex- 
pertise and hard work of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee. 

Mr. President, perhaps what the Re- 
publicans are telling us is that we 
ought to get rid of authorizing com- 
mittees: do not have any at all. Why 
go through the process of having hear- 
ings in the authorizing committee, of 
debating in the committee, of voting 
in the committee, of reporting out an 
authorization bill, if all we are going 
to do at the end of the year is wrap it 
into a continuing resolution? 

As a member of the Appropriations 
Committee, perhaps in some sense I 
would have a lot to gain from that: My 
power would go up; we would be able 
to define within the Appropriations 
Committee what the proper levels are; 
and perhaps through ingenious report 
language or through limiting how 
much mcney can be spent, we can 
even define how the money is to be 
spent, let alone how much is to be 
spent. 

However, even though those of us 
who serve on the Appropriations Com- 
mittee might gain in some parliamen- 
tary sense, I think we all lose if we go 
down this path. We lose because we 
lose the time-honored and time-tested 
and time-proven ability of authorizing 
committees to fully and thoroughly in- 
vestigate, debate, and decide how and 
how much we will spend on these pro- 
grams. I am not just talking about de- 
fense, but about other programs, too. 

So, because of this filibuster, we 
have the unique situation in which the 
Armed Services Committee has fully 
and faithfully discharged its responsi- 
bility to this body, and yet is not al- 
lowed to bring up the bill on the floor. 

It is obvious that the Republicans do 
not want the ABM Treaty interpreta- 
tion considered on its merits, even 
though all their current substantive 
arguments would be available to them 
once the debate has begun. They can 
argue it on the floor. No one is trying 
to argue that if we bring up the de- 



fense bill, they cannot have adequate 
time to debate these things. 

The distinguished Senator from 
Alaska said he wants to have a time 
agreement on the defense authoriza- 
tion bill and no debate on ABM, Asat, 
or SALT II. 

Well, as I said, M*\ President, the 
Senate will find a way to address these 
important and contentious issues and 
will probably do so on the continuing 
resolution. But that will be at the end 
of the year, in the rush to close, with- 
out full, fair, and open debate on these 
issues. It is not a responsible way for 
this body to operate. In fact, it is total- 
ly irresponsible to operate this way. 
Not only is it irresponsible; I also be- 
lieve it will leave Congress and the Na- 
tion's defenses in a weaker condition 
than would otherwise be the case. 

The distinguished Senator from 
Alaska made comments about differ- 
ent cuts in the defense bill. That is all 
to be debated. But for those of us who 
perceive more of a conventional threat 
to our interests in Europe and other 
places, and who believe there should 
be more of a conventional response on 
the part of our national defense forces 
instead of a Star Wars response, for 
example, we see in this authorization 
more money than the administration 
asked for— for things like the Abrams 
main battle tank or the Apache attack 
helicopter. 

This is the first time we have had 
this 2-year authorization. I think it is 
important to note that the authorizing 
committee has put a lot of stock in 
moving to the front our readiness and 
sustainability, especially in the con- 
ventional forces— in those critical 
areas that I think are more important 
to us than the money we are throwing 
down the rat hole on Star Wars. 

There are many critical areas of 
readiness and sustainability that the 
Armed Services Committee addressed. 
I will note one that is important not 
only to me but also to other Members 
of the Senate. 

The committee was able to increase 
funding for Army depot maintenance 
in fiscal year 1988, a critical readiness 
area of the fiscal year 1988 budget 
that was seriously underfunded. 

Well, I think that argues against 
those who say that somehow we are 
soft on defense and that all we want to 
do is cut defense. No. I can only speak 
for this Senator. I am ready to cut 
Star Wars funding, and we will have a 
vote on that on the floor. But in these 
other critical areas, I am not ready to 
cut, because I see a very real threat in 
terms of conventional forces and read- 
iness and sustainability. I believe all 
those are being eroded because of our 
rush to throw money at weapons in 
space. 

Mr. President, I know that others 
want to engage in this colloquy. All I 
will say in closing is that there is still 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23089 



time for the Republicans to partici- 
pate in the defense issues before the 
Senate, and there is still an opportuni- 
ty for a constructive conference. 
Therefore, I urge my colleagues on the 
other side of the aisle to really consid- 
er the defense needs of this Nation, to 
consider also whether or not they 
want to begin the process of destroy- 
ing the authorizing committee struc- 
ture of the U.S. Senate. 

I say to my colleagues on the other 
side: Do not go down in history as 
those who deprived our Armed Forces 
of authorizing legislation for the first 
time in three decades. For the first 
time in 30 years, we may not have a 
chance to bring up the authorization 
bill for the Armed Forces of the 
United States. 

So I ask my colleagues on the other 
side to reconsider. When we come back 
from our August recess, and when we 
have a vote on cloture to bring this to 
the floor for debate, I hope that my 
colleagues on the other side will recon- 
sider and let the measure come before 
us. Let us debate these issues, let the 
Senate work its will, and provide for 
the adequate defense of our country. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. WIRTH. Thank you very much, 
Mr. President. 

I, like the Presiding Officer this 
morning, arrived in the Senate in Jan- 
uary, full of anticipation and watching 
with great care the deliberations and 
anticipating that I would be involved 
in a lot of extraordinary important 
issues, and I, like the distinguished 
Presiding Officer, have had my frus- 
trations over the last 8 months as well, 
feeling a little bit often like the guests 
who come to the Senate and look 
down at this institution and sort of 
wonder what is going on. It is difficult 
to try to grasp that even after being 
here for 8 months much less to expect 
people to come in on their tour of 
Washington and see immediately what 
is happening here, why is there not 
more action, or people who are watch- 
ing our deliberations on television who 
see a great number of quorum calls 
and recesses, and so on, that we are 
not, as I think was so correctly sug- 
gested, we are not doing what we were 
sent here to do which is to debate and 
engage the great issues of our time, 
and certainly one of those great issues 
is the Defense authorization bill and 
the various pieces of that including 
the ABM Treaty and including other 
amendments that Members of the 
Senate fulfilling their constitutional 
obligations are offering. 

Where we are in is the simple situa- 
tion of having a piece of legislation 
which we, under the rules of the 
Senate, are required to bring up which 
is an authorization bill coming out of 
the Armed Services Committee, and I 
am a member of that committee. 

That authorization bill was crafted 
after a great deal of work under the 



leadership of Senator Nunn, probably 
one of the most respected if not the 
most respected defense analysts in the 
Congress or in the Senate or in the 
House of Representatives, his first 
year at the helm of that committee, 
and starting out with a very, very care- 
ful examination of our overall strategy 
and approach, what we were trying to 
do, where were we going, not micro- 
management, but the broad picture, 
narrowing that down into a bill that 
was reported out of the committee, I 
think by only one or two people voting 
"no" on legislation, a remarkable con- 
sensus on both sides, to try to bring 
that bill to the floor so that all 100 
Members of the Senate could partici- 
pate in the debate over what our 
Armed Forces ought to be and what 
our overall strategy ought to be, and 
where we ought to be going. We antici- 
pated, of course, we would have the 
opportunity to come to the floor. 

But we have not had that opportuni- 
ty because the minority party, the Re- 
publican Party, has systematically en- 
gaged in a filibuster to stop the 
debate, to stop the consideration, to 
stop the Defense authorization bill. 

We have a systematic, apparently 
party policy of the Republicans with 
the White House saying we are going 
to stop this particular piece of legisla- 
tion. That is what this is all about for 
those who are curious why we are here 
this morning and what the problem is. 
The problem is we have a bill that we 
want to bring to the floor, the Defense 
authorization bill, the Republicans 
and the White House object to one 
provision in that bill, the provision re- 
lated to the ABM Treaty. They object 
to that and so they are filibustering 
the whole bill and not bringing it up. 

Now I gather, Mr. President, that 
the history of the institution makes 
very clear that the filibuster is a very 
legitimate tool. The filibuster is a tool 
that is there under the compromise 
that was developed 200 years ago in 
the development of this Constitution, 
in which we set up a system which 
protects the interests of the minority 
and protects the interests of small 
States. The filibuster allows a small 
State or allows a minority interest or 
somebody who feels very strongly 
about a particular issue to get up and 
stop consideration until people really 
look very carefully at that issue. That 
is why we have the filibuster. It is 
there. It is wonderful kind of check in 
many ways to stop and slow people 
down and say, "Hey, there are things 
that I believe or my State believes or 
my region believes that are enormous- 
ly important. We may be getting tram- 
meled by the majority or trammeled 
by big States, so we are going to stop." 

That has been used over history very 
well. People who felt very strongly 
about civil rights made statements on 
civil rights; people who felt very 



strongly about voting rights made 
statements on voting rights. 

Recently we had a very colorful fili- 
buster 2 or 3 years ago on natural gas 
pricing. And other individuals and 
States will do it. 

But I have not seen a time in the 
history where a whole party position 
in concert with the White House sys- 
tematically said: We are going to stop 
the movement of the Senate until 
they go along with dropping out, as 
the Senator from Iowa so clearly said, 
dropping out a provision which was 
clearly put in the legislation by the 
committee, the provision on the ABM 
Treaty. Is that appropriate? I do not 
think so. 

Also, Mr. President, I do not remem- 
ber that the Democratic Party, when 
it was in the minority in the 1980's, 
that 6-year period of time, filibustered 
provisions as a party that we did not 
agree with. I did not agree with the 
Kemp-Roth tax cut. You remember 
that was a major part of what was 
going on in terms of the President's 
new philosophy of economics: You can 
cut taxes and we will all have more 
money, and it will go back in the econ- 
omy; we are going to build a better to- 
morrow in that fashion. 

I think most rational economists did 
not agree with that. We did not fili- 
buster. We lost fair and square on 
votes. We lost fair and square. It 
became the law of the land. We did 
not sit down and filibuster. We said 
have a fair and square debate. 

That is what we ought to have on 
the ABM Treaty. 

The argument is made this morning 
that not only the filibuster is a legiti- 
mate weapon but the filibuster is 
there, as pointed out, for the purposes 
of making sure that we not only do 
not address the ABM Treaty, issues so 
enormously important, but do not ad- 
dress either other provisions in the 
legislation, the SALT II provision and 
the Asat provision. 

The Senator from South Dakota, 
the distinguished Presiding Officer, 
and the Senator form Iowa, pointed 
out neither the SALT II Treaty provi- 
sion nor the Asat Treaty provision is 
in the bill. 

These may be amendments offered, 
but I think, that any Member of the 
Senate can offer amendments and I 
believe that, as I understand it, Sena- 
tor Bumpers is considering raising the 
SALT II amendment and Senator 
Kerry is interested in raising the Asat 
amendment. 

I do not know what rule there is or 
what history there is that individuals 
are precluded from offering those 
amendments. Those are important 
issues. 

The argument is made that those 
issues are extraneous. I find it remark- 
able to think that provisions related to 
the ABM Treaty and the potential of 



23090 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



expenditure of enormous amounts of 
money are extraneous, or debate relat- 
ed to SALT II, the overall level of war- 
heads and nuclear weapons we ought 
to have, is extraneous, or debate relat- 
ed to the Asat Treaty is extraneous, 
Asat weapons, antisatellite weapons is 
extraneous. What is extraneous? 

The ABM Treaty goes directly to the 
point of what we are going to do in 
terms of the strategic defense initia- 
tive which, as the President has said 
and as the Defense Department has 
said, has the potential expenditure of 
well over $1 trillion. One trillion dol- 
lars, Mr. President, is not extraneous. 
How much is $1 trillion? I mean none 
of us can even fathom how much 
money it was. The only way one can 
say $1 trillion is extraneous is because 
you cannot imagine how much $1 tril- 
lion dollars is so, therefore, it must be 
extraneous. 

I did the numbers while I was sitting 
here this morning. One trillion dollars, 
Mr. President, if you spent $1 million 
a day every day since the birth of 
Jesus Christ of Nazareth you still 
would not have spent $1 trillion today. 
If you spent $1 million a day since the 
birth of Jesus of Nazareth, do the 
numbers, and you still would not have 
spent $1 trillion today. 

Now, nearly $1 trillion and a poten- 
tial of $1 trillion expenditure cannot 
be described as being extraneous. 

Nor can we, when we look at the 
recent studies, just the early deploy- 
ment of SDI, if we were to do an early 
deployment is in my opinion prema- 
ture, but were we to do an early de- 
ployment of the strategic defense initi- 
ative system, that would cost, accord- 
ing to studies published just this week, 
over $1 trillion, early deployment 
alone, more than $1 trillion. Certainly, 
the ABM Treaty and all that it re- 
flects and all that it suggests and all 
that it might lead up to in terms of 
the strategic defense initiative and de- 
ployment is not extraneous. 

It was claimed also this morning 
that this is the first time that the 
ABM Treaty has been brought up in 
this kind of a fashion. Of course, it is. 
I think this is the first time, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that the administration has at- 
tempted unilaterally to change the 
treaty. 

Is SALT II extraneous? Hardly. The 
number of warheads? How many war- 
heads should we have? Where should 
we be going? We are spending approxi- 
mately $40 billion a year on nuclear 
warheads, nuclear delivery systems, 
and the support mechanism— about 
$40 billion a year. That is not extrane- 
ous. That is an enormous amount of 
money. 

Is ASAT extraneous? Does that sug- 
gest any kind of new weapons break- 
throughs is extraneous? That is like 
arguing the militarization of space is 
extraneous, like arguing, as we did in 
the past, going to intercontinental 



bombers, a whole new breakthrough, 
is extraneous, or going to MIRV'ing is 
extraneous, digital electronics is extra- 
neous. Is any new breakthrough extra- 
neous? Hardly. We ought to be debat- 
ing and looking at all of those. 

What does that have to do with de- 
fense? The ABM Treaty has every- 
thing to do with defense. It tells us 
how much are we going to spend on 
various strategic systems, how much 
we are going to balance off between 
conventional and strategic, what are 
we going to do in terms of spare parts 
and readiness and balance that against 
the enormous commitments to SDI. 
What impact are these investments 
going to have on our defense industri- 
al base? Enormously important. 

What spinoffs can we expect from 
SDI, if any? I think we would probably 
benefit from any basic research we 
did. Those are important issues to be 
debated. Hardly extraneous. 

It was said this morning: "We want 
the defense authorization bill to come 
up." Well, let us bring it up. It was 
said this morning: "We would love to 
debate these issues." Well, let us do it. 

For nearly 2 months now, the 
Senate has been forced to delay action 
on the fiscal 1988 national defense au- 
thorization bill— the legislation provid- 
ing for our security. 

Now, I join my colleagues in regret- 
ting that the bill has been stalled by 
Members on the other side of the 
aisle. That is especially regrettable be- 
cause eight minority members of the 
Armed Services Committee called this 
bill a "remarkable achievement" in 
the committee report. To my knowl- 
edge, those who have resisted acting 
on this bill single out but one objec- 
tion to further consideration: the 
Levin-Nunn amendment to require 
congressional approval of any SDI 
tests which would violate the restric- 
tive interpretation of the ABM Treaty. 

My Republican colleagues who 
oppose this amendment do so on the 
grounds that it usurps Presidential 
power to set overall U.S. defense 
policy and to interpret treaties affect- 
ing that policy. Mr. President, I reject 
that assertion without any hesitation 
at all. 

Congress does indeed have a role in 
considering— and acting upon— funda- 
mental national security issues. The 
Armed Services Committee stressed 
Congress' prerogative in its report lan- 
guage accompanying the ABM amend- 
ment. I think that language bears re- 
peating in the Record at this point: 

The decision to authorize expenditure of 
funds for the armed forces is one of the 
most significant constitutional responsibil- 
ities assigned to the Congress. The strategic 
defense initiative is one of the most contro- 
versial and costly programs ever to be pre- 
sented to the Congress. 

Without prejudging the wisdom and desir- 
ability of undertaking testing, development, 
and deployment of mobile/space-based 
ABM's using exotic technologies, it is imper- 



ative that Congress in general— and this 
committee in particular— examine in detail 
any proposed expenditures that would in- 
volve a substantial change in policy. 

Some argue that Congress— especial- 
ly the Senate— should not meddle in 
the interpretation of the ABM Treaty, 
in what testing is permissible under 
the accord as negotiated. But this 
proposition would make a mockery of 
the constitutional requirement that 
the President make treaties "by and 
with the advice and consent of the 
Senate." 

The Senate will be doing a disservice 
to the Constitution if we stand idly by 
while the President radically reinter- 
prets an existing treaty. 

The administration's new broad in- 
terpretation of the ABM Treaty is tan- 
tamount to the President unilaterally 
amending a treaty. Under the Consti- 
tution, the President must seek the 
advice and consent of the Senate in 
order to amend a treaty. If the Senate 
does not insist on upholding its consti- 
tutional prerogatives to advise and 
consent, I fear the Senate's role in the 
treaty making process will be severely 
damaged. 

For example, how could a Senator 
vote on a future treaty without com- 
plete assurance that the meaning 
placed before the Senate during the 
ratification process is in fact what the 
treaty will mean at a later time? How 
could a Senator support a treaty if he 
or she knows that, at some unspecified 
time, the executive branch can change 
the basic meaning of that treaty— 
without the advice and consent of the 
Senate? 

One other argument has been ad- 
vanced: That Congress should not 
adopt binding legislation concerning 
programs covered by international 
treaties. Yet the Constitution empow- 
ers Congress to appropriate or with- 
hold funds to provide and maintain 
America's Armed Forces. This power 
obviously includes the right to place 
limits on the appropriation of such 
funds, including limits on the testing 
and development of SDI. Regardless 
of one's position on the ABM Treaty 
or SDI, no one can dispute the power 
of Congress to legislate in this area. 

Mr. President, in my remarks, I have 
stressed the importance of Congress' 
central role in setting U.S. defense 
policy. That is the overriding issue we 
face in the administration's attempted 
"reinterpretation" of the ABM Treaty. 
But in discussing the accord, we 
should not lose sight of its intrinsic 
importance to our defense; the ABM 
Treaty is the bedrock of superpower 
arms control efforts and makes a criti- 
cal contribution to U.S. national secu- 
rity. 

For 15 years, the treaty's principal 
obligation— not to deploy a nationwide 
defense or provide the base for such a 
defense— has lent order to the strate- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23091 



gic competition between the United 
States and the Soviet Union. 

The ABM Treaty codifies a mutual 
recognition by the superpowers that 
neither country would agree to limit 
or reduce its strategic offensive arms if 
its adversary could build strategic de- 
fenses that would negate the ability to 
retaliate. The deep reductions in nu- 
clear weapons that we all seek can 
only occur if strategic defenses are 
strictly limited. 

Six former Secretaries of Defense — 
three Republicans and three Demo- 
crats—recently reaffirmed this stark 
reality. They said the ABM Treaty 
"makes possible the negotiation of 
substantial reductions in strategic of- 
fensive forces." 

The solemn obligation of both the 
United States and the Soviet Union 
not to deploy nationwide defenses or 
provide the base for such a defense is 
sustainable only under the restric- 
tive—or traditional— interpretation. 
Both parties to the 1972 accord under- 
stood that space-based and mobile 
ABM systems have an inherent na- 
tionwide capability and thus had to be 
tightly constrained in order to achieve 
the treaty's objective. 

Article V explicitly supports this ob- 
jective by prohibiting the develop- 
ment, testing and deployment of 
space-based and other mobile ABM 
systems and components. This provi- 
sion was clearly intended to apply to 
all technologies, future as well as cur- 
rent, in a treaty of unlimited duration. 

If this were not the case, the parties 
could circumvent this critical prohibi- 
tion through "exotic" technologies. If 
such systems were allowed to be devel- 
oped and tested, the parties would be 
able to provide the base for a nation- 
wide defense and thereby undermine 
the main purpose of the treaty. I 
hasten to add that the six Secretaries 
of Defense to whom I referred earlier 
have also urged both the United 
States and the Soviet Union to uphold 
this traditional interpretation of the 
ABM Treaty. 

The White House has decided, 
wrongly in my view, to challenge this 
well-documented interpretation, sub- 
stantiated in full by the leading mili- 
tary and civilian officials— including 
the treaty negotiators— in the Nixon 
administration. But what the White 
House cannot challenge is the legisla- 
tive branch's essential role in assessing 
any change in our country's existing 
treaty obligations. 

That role is at the heart of our con- 
stitutional process. It is a fundamental 
element of our system of checks and 
balances. It is the process upon which 
the integrity and consistency of our 
international commitments rest. 

If the administration is allowed to 
alter unilaterally our obligations 
under the ABM Treaty, U.S. credibil- 
ity in the international arena will cer- 
tainly be severely undermined. Our 



friends and allies will question our 
commitment to other critical interna- 
tional obligations. Arbitrary actions 
like the "reinterpretation" fly in the 
face of our national commitment to 
the rule of law— here and abroad. 

The Senate Armed Services Commit- 
tee has acted, I believe, with foresight 
in restraining the administration's 
effort to stretch the ABM Treaty 
beyond recognition— without consult- 
ing Congress. The committee has 
acted prudently— and without preju- 
dice toward the strategic defense initi- 
ative—to bring the administration 
back within the constitutional guide- 
lines that have served this country so 
well for two centuries. 

That is why I am puzzled by my Re- 
publican colleagues' concern about the 
Levin-Nunn amendment and their fili- 
buster of the entire defense authoriza- 
tion bill. Are they asking the U.S. 
Senate to choose either an abdication 
of the Senate's constitutional respon- 
sibilities or a sound defense bill? That 
strikes me as a "lose-lose" proposition. 

Mr. President, we have on the calen- 
dar a carefully crafted defense bill, 
which committee Republicans them- 
selves describe as, "a proper bal- 
ance * * * between our national secu- 
rity objectives and the need to balance 
the Federal budget." It is time we 
brought this well-done legislation to 
the Senate floor. 

I urge our colleagues to vote an end 
to the Republican filibuster of this 
bill, which authorizes America's de- 
fense program and is so important to 
our national security. By doing so, I 
hope that Members of the Senate, ir- 
respective of their position on SDI and 
the ABM Treaty, will join with us on 
the Armed Services Committee in up- 
holding our responsibility in the Con- 
gress and our prerogative to advise 
and consent in the making of our 
international obligations. 

Let me close by quoting from the 
debate earlier this morning. It is the 
other side: 

"We want the defense authorization 
bill to come up." Well, again I would 
say: Let us bring it up. 

The other side: "We would love to 
debate these issues." Well, let us go to 
it. 

Thank you very much, Mr. Presi- 
dent, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from California. 

THE COSTS OF THE FILIBUSTER OF THE DOD 
AUTHORIZATION BILL 

Mr. CRANSTON. Mr. President, the 
filibuster of the DOD bill has crippled 
the authorization of funds for the na- 
tional defense— stifling debate and 
stalling action on vitally important 
military matters. 

This can weaken our military 
strength and our national defense pos- 
ture. 

It has also prevented the U.S. 
Senate from considering and coming 



to grips with the most crucial issue 
facing us today: arms control and the 
prevention of nuclear war. An inflexi- 
ble Republican majority has blocked 
any action on the defense budget in 
order to prevent a public vote on vital 
issues like compliance with the SALT 
II ceilings, SDI funding, and nuclear 
testing. Rather than risk an honest, 
straightforward vote on these meas- 
ures, these Senators— not all Republi- 
cans, but most Republicans— have 
chosen to undermine the entire au- 
thorization process, and to obstruct 
any debate on priorities for the de- 
fense of the United States. 

Meanwhile by the end of this year, 
the United States will have deployed 
300 warheads— cruise missiles on B- 
52's— in excess of the numerical sub- 
ceilings of the SALT II agreement. 

The Reagan administration is work- 
ing on the prospective INF Treaty. I 
expect to work hard for that treaty. I 
expect to help lead an effort to break 
any fililbuster launched against that 
treaty— some Republicans may try to 
block it with a filibuster. I expect to be 
in President Reagan's corner on that 
one. 

But it is bitterly ironic that while 
the United States would destroy 316 
warheads over 5 years under the INF 
Treaty, the administration— through 
its Strategic Modernization Program- 
is deploying 316 more warheads every 
10 weeks. This unilateral abrogation of 
treaty ceilings by the Reagan adminis- 
tration has gone forward without the 
Senate ever being permitted to vote on 
the matter. 

At the same time the Reagan admin- 
istration is squandering billions of dol- 
lars in a rush to deptoy a provocative 
but ineffective strategic defense 
system. The administration is also 
hard at work developing specious argu- 
ments to convince us that SDI testing 
is allowed under the ABM Treaty. 
While tortuous arguments continue on 
Capitol Hill about new and revised in- 
terpretations and legally correct defi- 
nitions for various articles of this 
treaty, the administration is moving 
full steam ahead to develop weapons 
tests that would clearly violate the 
ABM Treaty restrictions. 

Many Senators don't buy the rein- 
terpreted version of the ABM Treaty. 
Obstructionist Senators, rather than 
confront the issue head on, are trying 
to muzzle this body, to keep us silent, 
to prevent votes not only on arms con- 
trol, but on the entire defense budget. 
Certain Senators are unwilling to deal 
with the defense budget of the United 
States of America. Clearly, they are 
concerned that the Senate is likely to 
vote to uphold the traditional, narrow 
interpretation of the ABM Treaty. 
Clearly they are concerned that the 
Senate may well vote to bring the 
United States back into compliance 
with those SALT II limitations which 



23092 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



are still being observed by the Soviet 
Union. 

I believe it is a disservice to this 
body to hold hostage our national de- 
fense bill because some Senators want 
to duck an up-or-down vote on these 
arms control issues. Worse, it's a dis- 
service to our Nation, and its people. 
Let's debate these issues in our open 
forum. Then let's make the tough 
choices we were sent here to make. 
Let's proceed with votes on SALT ceil- 
ings, on ABM restrictions, and on nu- 
clear testing— and defense issues. And 
let us not allow the Senate— the 
world's greatest deliberative body— to 
become the silent Chamber on vitally 
important arms control and defense 
legislation. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Vermont. 

Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I have 
listened to what the distinguished Pre- 
siding Officer has said, the distin- 
guished deputy majority leader, and I 
want to echo their comments. I think 
what they have said and others have 
said on this subject has been extreme- 
ly important. They are matters that 
the whole country should listen to. 

Mr. President, the Senate is facing 
an unprecedented situation. A deter- 
mined minority of Senators are pre- 
venting action on the defense authori- 
zation bill. 

No one questions the patriotism of 
these Senators. They are not against a 
strong defense of this country. Indeed, 
some of them are for spending even 
more for defense than the defense au- 
thorization bill would provide. None of 
them would do anything to undermine 
our Armed Forces. Yet they have re- 
peatedly prevented the distinguished 
majority leader and the distinguished 
chairman of the Armed Services Com- 
mittee from bringing the defense au- 
thorization bill to the Senate floor. 
Three times they have blocked a clo- 
ture motion to bring their filibuster to 
a halt. 

Why on Earth do we have this amaz- 
ing spectacle of strong, prodefense 
Senators filibustering the bill intended 
to authorize every activity and weapon 
under the purview of the Department 
of Defense? Why have they refused to 
let the Senate act on this bill for over 
2 months? 

Mr. President, the answer is simple. 
They do not want to allow the Senate 
to vote on arms control. The bill con- 
tains a provision authored by the dis- 
tinguished chairman of the commit- 
tee, the Senator from Georgia [Mr. 
Nunn], and my friend the able Sena- 
tor from Michigan [Mr. Levin] which 
would prevent the administration 
from destroying the ABM Treaty in its 
relentless pursuit of the pie-in-the-sky 
star wars program. 

Star wars, or the strategic defense 
initiative, has become the touchstone 
of loyalty to the administration. Its 
proponents are willing to frustrate the 



will of the Senate and kill the defense 
bill if that is what it takes to prevent 
the Nunn-Levin provision from becom- 
ing law. They know there is a decided 
majority in the Senate in support of 
the Nunn-Levin language to save the 
ABM Treaty from being gutted, and 
they dare not let it come to a vote. 

There is another issue, Mr. Presi- 
dent, that frightens those who refuse 
to let the defense bill come up on the 
Senate floor. That is the Bumpers- 
Leahy-Chafee-Heinz amendment to 
put the United States back into ob- 
servance of the three main weapons 
ceilings of the unratified SALT II 
Treaty. We have repeatedly declared 
our firm intention of offering this 
amendment, together with our 46 co- 
sponsors, on the defense authorization 
bill. Fifty Senators have said they be- 
lieve it is in the national security in- 
terests of the United States to main- 
tain the ceilings on Soviet multiple 
warhead missiles and cruise missile 
carrying bombers. Those key ceilings 
strongly favor the United States, and 
are all that stands between the world 
and a wide open, totally unconstrained 
race in strategic missiles and bombers. 

Now, why is it that 50 Senators, Re- 
publicans and Democrats, support 
Bumpers-Leahy-Chafee-Heinz, when a 
decided majority of the Senators sup- 
port Nunn-Levin, why is it that we 
cannot vote on this? Why is it that we 
cannot express the will of our con- 
stituents and the will of the majority 
this way? 

The Senate is designed so that the 
rights of a minority are protected. 
They may insist on delay and careful 
consideration of a measure they 
oppose. But, even in the Senate, there 
comes a time when the majority must 
be able to exercise its rights, too. We 
have waited patiently for the minority 
who oppose these arms control provi- 
sions to state their objections and con- 
cern, and then to allow us to make our 
case in support of our amendments. 
Yet, they will not allow us this right. 

If they oppose our amendments, let 
us bring them up, let us debate them, 
let us vote them up or down. 

If they want to offer different 
amendments, then let us do that. Let 
us vote them up or down. But I think 
most people in this country know 
where they stand on arms control 
issues. 

They would probably like to see the 
U.S. Senate, the body that should be 
the conscience of the Nation, the pulse 
of it, vote on the issue of arms control. 

Mr. President, this delay threatens 
to kill the defense bill altogether. But, 
I say to my friends who are filibuster- 
ing the defense authorization that 
they can duck the arms control issues 
only so long. Congress cannot adjourn 
this year without passing an appro- 
priation for the Defense Department, 
either in a separate appropriations bill 
or in a continuing resolution. It would 



be better for the Senate and for the 
Defense Department if we could ad- 
dress these policy issues on a policy 
bill such as the defense authorization 
bill, instead of a continuing resolution. 

It would be better for the Senate, ac- 
tually it would be better for the De- 
partment of Defense, if we could ad- 
dress these policy issues on a policy 
bill such as the defense authorization 
bill instead of on a continuing resolu- 
tion. 

But, if the minority, those opposed 
to arms control, continues to frustrate 
the will of the Senate, we will be left 
with no other choice but to act on the 
defense appropriations bill or the con- 
tinuing resolution. We will at last get a 
vote which will make the Senate show 
where it stands on preserving the in- 
tegrity of the ABM Treaty and the 
SALT II interim restraints in the 
Bumpers-Leahy-Chafee-Heinz amend- 
ment. 

Really, here is what we are facing: Is 
the majority of the U.S. Senate in 
favor of arms control or are they not? 
The majority of the people in this 
country are in favor of arms control. 
Certainly, when you consider the 
global states, I would suggest that the 
majority of the people throughout the 
world are in favor of arms control. 

We are the conscience of the coun- 
try, we are the conscience of the 
Nation, in the U.S. Senate. At some 
point we ought to be allowed to vote 
and say we are in favor, each one of 
us. Each 100 of the men and women in 
this body ought to be able to stand up 
and say they are in favor of arms con- 
trol or they are not. 

I know I am, and I am eager to have 
that vote. I want to cast my vote in 
favor of arms control as do the majori- 
ty of the Members of this body, as do 
a lot of Democrats and a lot of Repub- 
licans in this body. That is all we are 
asking, for a chance to do that. 

That is why I urge those who are 
filibustering this bill to stop and allow 
the distinguished majority leader and 
allow the distinguished chairman of 
the Armed Services Committee to 
bring up the defense authorization 
bill, debate the issues involved, and 
vote them up or vote them down. 

I thank the Chair. 

Mr. NUNN addressed the Chair. 

The ACTING PRESIDENT pro tem- 
pore. The Senator from Georgia. 

Mr. NUNN. Mr. President, I thank 
my colleagues for bringing this matter 
to the attention of the Senate this 
morning. I share their desire to get 
the defense authorization bill called 
up. We have been very frustrated in 
the last couple of months when we 
have been precluded from having that 
opportunity. 

Mr. President, on Friday, July 21 the 
distinguished majority leader sought 
unanimous consent to bring before the 
Senate the national defense authoriza- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23093 



tion bill for fiscal years 1988 and 1989. 
This bill— which is vital to the security 
of our Nation— has been the subject of 
a filibuster which has precluded 
Senate consideration since last May. 

The filibuster is over a spending lim- 
itation in our bill, one which seeks to 
ensure that the substantial increases 
we provided for SDI— an authorization 
of $4.5 billion— are expended in a 
manner consistent with DOD's testi- 
mony about the SDI Program. The 
amendment became necessary when 
we received information that the exec- 
utive branch believed that the funds 
could be used for any type of test or 
development program, regardless of 
whether it had been presented to Con- 
gress. 

In other words, the administration 
came up and presented a program to 
the Senate committee and said, "This 
is what we are going to do this year. 
Please give us the money for this." 

We gave them the money and the 
administration spokesman said: 

We resei ve the right to go to another test- 
ing program that would basically be a de- 
parture from what we presented to the 
Senate, one that would go with a different 
interpretation of the ABM Treaty, and we 
can do that at any time. Of course, we will 
consult with the Congress before we do it. 

Consultation, as we all know, can be 
anything from a letter, to a phone 
call, to a 20-minute presentation, to a 
statement that they are going to do 
something the next morning. So con- 
sultation is not enough for those of us 
who have been here for awhile. 

Despite the generous funding of SDI 
by the Senate Armed Services Com- 
mittee—a full $1.4 billion more than 
the House bill— and more than many 
people think is going to come out of 
our own Appropriations Committee- 
there has been objection to taking up 
our committee's bill. I find such objec- 
tions particularly perplexing and puz- 
zling in light of a recent letter on the 
defense bill signed by Secretary of De- 
fense Weinberger, which our commit- 
tee received on July 28. 

Most of this submission is unclassi- 
fied. Part of it is classified, and I will 
discuss only the unclassified portion 
this morning. 

According to Secretary Weinberger, 
this letter constitutes "the Defense 
views on the House and Senate au- 
thorization bills." This document is 
commonly known in the inner circle as 
the heartburn ietter because it ex- 
presses the position cf the Pentagon's 
leadership on the legislative matters 
of greatest concern. 

This year's letter is one of the long- 
est and most detailed in memory. The 
basic letter consists of 16 single-spaced 
pages, addressing 31 specific issues. 
Enclosure 1 includes 6 pages of lan- 
guage appeals, discussing 12 legislative 
matters. Enclosure 2 has 19 pages with 
46 additional items of concern. 



Secretary Weinberger's letter dis- 
cusses 89 issues, ranging from the nu- 
clear testing limitation in the House 
bill to the House's reduction in fund- 
ing for the academic and library facili- 
ty at Fort McNair. It is indeed, a com- 
prehensive list, and provides great in- 
sight into what we are told are the 
Secretary's priorities. 

I find it noteworthy, therefore, and I 
am sure my colleagues will, that this 
massive document does not make men- 
tion of the SDI testing limitation in 
the Senate bill. 

Here we are, after 2 months of fili- 
bustering on that major provision, and 
the Secretary of Defense never even 
mentions it. 

Indeed, Secretary Weinberger's dis- 
cussion of the SDI Program focuses on 
the vast differences in funding be- 
tween the House and Senate versions, 
and he concludes: "I strongly support 
the Senate provision." 

I emphasize that is on the funding 
provision. That is not on the limita- 
tion provision. 

The Secretary's heartburn letter 
identifies only two provisions as con- 
stituting an effort to legislate treaties, 
both of which appear in the House 
bill: the nuclear testing limitation and 
the Salt II limitations on strategic 
forces. 

Secretary Weinberger solicits sup- 
port for the Senate Armed Services 
Committee's bill because it does not 
contain the arms control provisions 
which he finds offensive: "The inclu- 
sion of these provisions in the final 
conference report could, depending on 
their form, force the President to veto 
that legislation." 

It is interesting that although these 
are strong words, they leave open the 
possibility of compromise on the final 
form of the legislation. 

The predominant theme in Secre- 
tary Weinberger's letter is support for 
the Senate bill. On 26 out of the 31 
major items addressed in his letter, he 
has recommended adoption of the pro- 
visions in the bill drafted by the 
Senate Armed Services Committee. Of 
the 58 language and additional issues, 
he recommends adoption of the 
Senate Armed Services Committee po- 
sition on 46 items. 

It is apparent that while the House 
bill gives the Secretary heartburn, the 
Senate bill does not even give rise to a 
mild case of indigestion, according to 
his submission. 

I wonder whether the Department 
of Defense has overlooked this provi- 
sion that has been the subject of fili- 
buster for 2 months, or whether they 
do not consider it significant. In either 
event, it seems that the people who 
have been filibustering would want to 
pick up the phone and call over to the 
Department of Defense and say, "Mr. 
Secretary, we want you to take a look 
at this provision because we have been 
filibustering it for 2 months and you 



never mentioned it in your reclama 
letter." 

Secretary Weinberger's letter re- 
flects the fact that the administra- 
tion's best hope for a strong defense 
bill rests with the Senate Armed Serv- 
ices Committee. Their best hope for a 
substantial increase in SDI funding 
also rests with this committee. But if 
this committee is precluded by the 
Senate from playing a central role in 
the defense debate, this committee 
will be in no position to provide the 
help that Secretary Weinberger is 
seeking. 

Mr. President, the Senator from 
Massachusetts has already been very 
generous. If I may take 1 more minute 
and conclude, I shall yield back to 
him. I am grateful to him for being so 
generous in yielding to me. 

How did we get to this position? Per- 
haps there is a clue in the remarks of 
July 21 by the distinguished Senator 
from California [Mr. Wilson] as to 
why he opposed consideration of the 
defense bill: 

We should have had this fight out last 
year, Mr. President, in the conference on 
the defense authorization bill when the 
House of Representatives, in two or three 
provisions relating to arms control treaties, 
sought to impose upon the President of the 
United States, and the people of the United 
States, observance of an unratified treaty. 

That is wrong. And we started to have 
that fight, Mr. President, but did not con- 
clude it. Why? Because the House Demo- 
crats, members of that conference commit- 
tee, those conferees, did not wish to under- 
mine the President on his way to Reykjavik 
and it was on the eve of Reykjavik that, in 
fact, they decided to withdraw from that en- 
gagement and withdrew those amendments. 

Mr. President, I appreciate the fact 
that the Senator from California 
wanted to teach the House a lesson 
last year, and that he is frustrated 
that he was unable to do so. Yet he 
should recall that the House Members 
simply did not walk away from their 
arms control issues last year. With all 
due modesty, I would remind my good 
friend that the House was unable in 
conference to convince this Senator 
and our colleagues on the Senate side 
of the conference to accept the views 
of the House. By using the defense bill 
as a vehicle for debating these issues, 
we were able to ensure that a reasona- 
ble bill emerged from conference. 

This year, we again face arms con- 
trol issues from the House. If not on 
the Defense authorization bill, they 
will appear on an appropriations bill 
or continuing resolution. We also face 
severe cuts in SDI funding from the 
House. If we do not enact our Defense 
authorization bill, there is a consider- 
able likelihood that the final cuts will 
be steep. 

Mr. President, I appreciate the good- 
faith efforts undertaken by the minor- 
ity leader and the ranking member of 
our committee to bring the bill to the 
floor. They know that the best posture 



23094 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



for the President's defense program is 
to have the Senate Armed Services 
Committee leading the way. I regret 
that they have not been able to per- 
suade their colleagues to take up the 
bill. But if they are truly interested in 
the President's defense program, it is 
time for them to put aside the rhetoric 
of their colleagues about arms control 
amendments so we can bring the de- 
fense bill to the floor. 

There are no arms control amend- 
ments in our bill. Let there be no 
doubt that the Armed Services Com- 
mittee is capable of drafting an arms 
control amendment should it see the 
need for such an amendment. We are 
capable of drafting an amendment 
that enshrines the traditional inter- 
pretation of the ABM Treaty as the 
official permanent position of the 
United States, but we have not done 
so. We did not do that, although the 
way some of our colleagues are taking 
it, we might as well have done that 
and perhaps we will before this is over. 

Our provision does not preclude the 
administration from testing mobile/ 
space-based ABM's during the next 2 
years if they determine that there is a 
need to do so; rather than leaving this 
matter to the normal legislative proc- 
ess and type of delays that have 
plagued this bill, we even provided an 
expedited procedure to ensure prompt 
consideration of a Presidential re- 
quest. 

It is clear that neither the authority 
of the President nor the SDI Program 
are put in jeopardy. The committee's 
report accompanying the bill does not 
assert that section 233 embodies a con- 
clusive interpretation of the ABM 
Treaty. On the contrary, the report 
notes that section 233 is based upon 
the most recent testimony— of 
whom?— of the Reagan administration 
as to what it intends to do in the 2 
fiscal years covered by this bill: 

The administration has stated that its re- 
search and development program for the 
Strategic Defense Initiative complies with 
the prohibition against testing and develop- 
ment of mobile/space-based ABMs using ex- 
otics. The administration has not requested 
any funding for fiscal years 1988 or 1989 to 
test or develop mobile/space-based ABMs 
using exotics. 

Section 233 was added, as noted in 
the report, because of the administra- 
tion's insistence that it reserved the 
right, acting without congressional ap- 
proval, to initiate such testing and de- 
velopment. In other words, the admin- 
istration would like to have a $4.5 bil- 
lion blank check from the Congress. 

That is what they are asking for 
now, that is what the battle is about. 
It is not whether we have a permanent 
broad or narrow interpretation of the 
ABM Treaty. The question is whether 
the Senate and the House of Repre- 
sentatives are going to have a say-so as 
to how the money is spent. Are they 
going to reserve the right to change in 
the middle of the year after they have 



been given the money and go to an- 
other testing program? That is what 
this is all about. I think anybody who 
has any interest in this institution, 
whether they are for or against a 
narrow or broad interpretation of the 
ABM Treaty, would want to take that 
into account. I think our colleagues 
need to reexamine this position and 
allow this to come forward. I am grate- 
ful for my colleagues' bringing that to 
our attention before we recess. 

The committee's report makes it 
clear that the limitation in section 233 
was made without prejudice to the 
President's ability to request statutory 
authority to use funds provided by 
Congress for such tests: 

The decision to authorize expenditure of 
funds for the armed forces is one of the 
most significant constitutional responsibil- 
ities assigned to the Congress. The Strategic 
Defense Initiative is one of the most contro- 
versial and costly programs ever to be pre- 
sented to the Congress. Without prejudging 
the wisdom and desirability of undertaking 
testing, development, and deployment of 
mobile/space-based ABMs using exotic tech- 
nologies, it is imperative that Congress in 
general— and this committee in particular — 
examine in detail any proposed expendi- 
tures that would involve such a substantial 
change in policy. 

The Committee on Armed Services is 
well aware of the studies going on 
within the administration as to the 
meaning of the ABM Treaty. It is not 
our purpose in this bill to reach a con- 
clusive determination as to what the 
treaty means— that is a separate 
matter. But it is important to recog- 
nize that a determination as to what 
the treaty means is only the first step 
in deciding what our acquisit' jn policy 
should be. 

Even if it is determined that testing 
and development of mobile/space- 
based ABM's should be undertaken, 
that does not mean that every scheme 
dreamed up by the Pentagon will be 
wise, efficient, or cost-effective. The 
decision as to whether funds provided 
by Congress should be expended on 
any specific development or testing 
program must be made by the Con- 
gress after careful consideration by 
the Committees on Armed Services in 
both Houses of Congress. Section 233 
simply ensures that Congress partici- 
pates in that decision. 

In recognition of the importance 
that the President has placed on this 
program, we even included a provision 
guaranteeing that if the President pro- 
poses to test mobile/space-based 
ABM's, he will get a clear vote in Con- 
gress within 60 days without any of 
the delaying tactics that have been 
displayed in connection with this bill. 

Section 233 is consistent with both 
traditional and current policies of the 
United States, including those articu- 
lated by the administration. 

It reflects the implications of the 
ABM Treaty for weapons systems test- 
ing and development, as presented by 



the Nixon administration to the 
Senate Armed Services Committee 
during treaty ratification proceedings 
in 1972. 

It embodies the views of the execu- 
tive branch, including the Reagan ad- 
ministration, in the arms control 
impact statements submitted through 
fiscal year 1985. 

It sets forth the views of the Strate- 
gic Defense Initiative Organization in 
its 1985 report. 

Although the administration has 
now asserted that the ABM Treaty 
should be reinterpreted to permit such 
tests, the administration has repeated- 
ly stated that its present SDI Program 
has been structured in a manner that 
is consistent with the traditional inter- 
pretation of the treaty. 

In short, section 233 ensures ade- 
quate congressional participation in a 
major military funding decision. While 
consistent with traditional U.S. policy 
on the ABM Treaty, it does not man- 
date a particular interpretation of the 
treaty and provides a means of dealing 
with changes in U.S. policy on that 
treaty, without giving the Pentagon a 
$4.5 billion blank check to test and de- 
velop weapons systems without a pres- 
entation to the Congress. 

Mr. President, those who really care 
about the SDI Program know that the 
best opportunity for adequate funding 
this year rests with the Senate Armed 
Services Committee's bill. 

Mr. President, I thank my colleague 
from Massachusetts again for yielding 
me the time to go forward with this 
presentation. 

Mr. KERRY. Mr. President, I thank 
the Senator from Georgia, the chair- 
man of the Armed Services Commit- 
tee. No one in this institution speaks 
with more authority, more knowledge, 
and, I think, with more concern about 
the national security interests of this 
country than the chairman of the 
Armed Services Committee. I think his 
comments were most important. 

Mr. President, this filibuster by the 
Republicans is a filibuster which 
cannot and should not be taken in iso- 
lation. The letters, GOP, which used 
to stand for the Grand Old Party, are 
coming to stand, I think, for the 
Grand Obstructionist Party, because it 
seems that the strategy of our col- 
leagues across the aisle, on issue after 
issue in this 100th Congress, is to ob- 
struct, to delay, not to talk but to balk 
on every single issue that comes before 
us. 

They did not participate in the 
budget process. We all know that it 
took the Democrats to put the budget 
through. We have seen a filibuster not 
only on this issue but on another issue 
of major concern before the American 
people. That is the issue of campaign 
finance reform. And now, on the de- 
fense authorization bill, slowed up for 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23095 



months because of a decision, once 
again, to obstruct. 

I think all of us are very familiar 
with the term "the misery index," by 
which we used to measure inflation, 
and the effects of those disastrous 
consequences in our economy. I think 
we ought to start a new index, call it 
the obstruction index, and begin to 
measure the approach of the Republi- 
can Party to important issues before 
this country. 

Mr. President, this body has now 
been prevented for months— for 
months— from considering one of the 
most important pieces of legislation 
before the country and before the U.S. 
Congress, the defense authorization 
bill. Senators who ordinarily consider 
themselves to be strong defenders of 
America's security have said that they 
would rather see no bill whatsoever- 
no authorization, no process by which, 
Senator for Senator and State for 
State, the U.S. Congress will carry out 
its obligations in order to pass on im- 
portant questions of national securi- 
ty—than have a defense bill which in- 
cludes any provision limiting the 
President's ability unilaterally to repu- 
diate the ABM Treaty by conducting 
tests which violate that treaty. 

The Republicans have said that so 
long as the Nunn-Levin language stays 
on the defense bill, they will continue 
their filibuster. Indeed, some have said 
that so long as any arms control provi- 
sions limit Presidential freedom to 
move forward with the arms race, they 
will continue their filibuster. They do 
not have the votes to win on the 
merits, so they are going to try to pre- 
vent and they will continue to prevent, 
as part of their obstructionist strategy, 
the U.S. Senate from voting at all. 

Mr. President, I think we should 
stop and think for a few moments 
about what it is that motivates Sena- 
tor Nunn and Senator Levin to create 
this language in the first place. The 
chairman of the Senate Armed Serv- 
ices Committee, a man considered, I 
think, by most people in this country 
to be as tough as anyone on military 
matters, decided that the issue over 
the ABM Treaty was of sufficient 
gravity that it had to have such lan- 
guage. Why did Senator Carl Levin 
work with Senator Nunn in drafting 
this language and in securing its pas- 
sage by a majority vote in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee? 

The reason, Mr. President, is known 
to all of us. The reason is very simple: 
it is because Senators in this institu- 
tion have come to understand that we 
simply cannot trust the President of 
the United States on this issue not to 
proceed forward unilaterally to abro- 
gate the ABM Treaty. 

The reason that we cannot trust him 
is the history of negotiations, not only 
on this matter but on other defense- 
related matters. After 14 years of 
living with a treaty that was passed 



during President Nixon's administra- 
tion, promoted by President Nixon and 
by the Republican Secretary of De- 
fense and others, and voted on by a 
vote of 88 to 2 by the U.S. Senate- 
after 14 years of living with that 
treaty, this administration has come 
forward and tried to tell us that, no, 
the treaty does not mean what every- 
body believed it meant when it was 
signed and ratified; it somehow means 
something new, something mysterious, 
something pulled out of secret docu- 
ments and negotiations which were 
never part of the deliberations which 
the U.S. Senate went through when it 
passed the treaty in the first place. 

They have come up with an inter- 
pretation which is 180 degrees con- 
trary to the way the treaty was inter- 
preted by the negotiators, by the 
Nixon administration witnesses who 
testified, and by individual Senators 
who asked questions during the hear- 
ings and who spoke on the floor of the 
Senate during the debate. 

This filibuster, Mr. President, is 
taking place because the Armed Serv- 
ices Committee voted to uphold the 
traditional prerogatives of the U.S. 
Senate to make sure that the Presi- 
dent of the United States does not uni- 
laterally, on his own, abrogate a treaty 
of the United States, approved by the 
Senate, which is the law of the land. 

The Nunn-Levin language does not 
even say that the President is wrong 
in his reinterpretation. There is no 
judgment whatsoever in the language 
put forward by Senator Nunn and 
Senator Levin, even though a majority 
of the U.S. Senate does believe it is 
wrong. That is not part of the Nunn- 
Levin language. All the Nunn-Levin 
language does is say that the Presi- 
dent cannot conduct tests prohibited 
by the original understanding of the 
treaty without us, Congress, agreeing 
to those tests. That is all it says. 

The Nunn-Levin language is an at- 
tempt to reassert the traditional con- 
gressional prerogatives, the right of 
the Senate to approve treaties and to 
see that they are lived up to by our 
Government, and that we will exercise 
our power of the purse, which is the 
right to decide what initiatives are 
worthy of being funded and what ini- 
tiatives are not worthy of being 
funded. 

The controversy over the interpreta- 
tion of the ABM Treaty raises a 
number of important issues which the 
Nunn-Levin amendment would make 
certain would be debated prior to any 
test of an exotic star wars component. 

I ask my colleagues: Is it too much 
to ask that the U.S. Senate should 
have the opportunity to guarantee 
that a treaty that we ratified be 
upheld according to the interpretation 
that we had when we ratified it? 

Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, will 
the Senator yield? 



Mr. KERRY. The Senator will yield 
for an answer to his question at the 
end of my comments. 

Mr. QUAYLE. At that point? 

Mr. KERRY. At the end of my com- 
ments, I will be happy to yield to the 
Senator from Indiana, and we can 
have a colloquy. 

Mr. President, the controversy over 
the interpretation of the ABM Treaty, 
I think, raises a number of important 
issues which the Nunn-Levin amend- 
ment, itself, would make certain would 
be debated prior to moving into that 
exotic test situation. 

The administration's back-door at- 
tempt to rewrite history in advancing 
the so-called broad interpretation of 
the ABM Treaty implicitly repudiates 
the process of lawmaking in the 
United States. It repudiates the role of 
Congress in approving treaties, and it 
repudiates arms control itself. 

The Nunn-Levin language provides 
Congress with an opportunity to con- 
sider carefully whether that kind of 
repudiation is a good idea or not. 

Mr. President, an administration 
that can come to believe that trading 
guns for hostages is a neat idea is an 
administration that is also capable of 
coming quicker to believe that trading 
arms control for star wars is also a 
neat idea— and they have made it 
abundantly clear that they do believe 
that is a neat idea. 

The Nunn-Levin language, it appears 
to this Senator, is one way to make 
certain that star wars does not become 
the arms control equivalent of the 
Iran scandal, a neat idea with disas- 
trous consequences in practice. 

The Nunn-Levin language is one way 
for the Senate to stop the cynical in- 
terpretation of the treaty by the ad- 
ministration, which prefers to change 
the meaning of the treaty rather than 
take the political heat for deciding to 
get out of the treaty altogether, which 
is certainly one of its alternatives. 

Mr. President, the international 
community has come a long way over 
the past century in creating a broad- 
ening framework for extending laws 
through treaties, in improving our re- 
lations with other countries by estab- 
lishing a protocol of international rule 
of law. The ABM Treaty debate has 
begun to take place as not merely a 
debate about whether Congress and 
the executive are going to agree or dis- 
agree to uphold the law, but a debate 
as to whether the United States will 
continue to promote the rule of law 
internationally. 

The Nunn-Levin language says that 
when it comes to the ABM Treaty, the 
United States is determined to adhere 
to the standards of international rule 
of law. 

Some in this institution may try to 
insist that the ABM Treaty is some- 
how like the Boland amendment, a re- 
striction of controversial legislation 






23096 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



passed by slim majority over the pro- 
test of the President, but that is not 
what happened. That is not the case 
with this treaty. 

As I have said, this was a treaty pro- 
moted by and signed by President 
Nixon, approved by this body by a 
vote of 82 to 2; and in reinterpreting 
the ABM Treaty to permit what that 
treaty always prohibited, the adminis- 
tration is doing far more than it has 
ever done in claiming that something 
like the Boland amendment inadvert- 
ently restricted it. 

This interpretation that the admin- 
istration puts forward undermines the 
treaty process itself. It undermines 
arms control, and I would think that 
Senators would care that it under- 
mines the prerogatives of the U.S. 
Senate. 

Mr. President, if one is permitted to 
sign into law and ratify a treaty of this 
country by a vote of 88 to 2 and every 
aspect of that debate says this treaty 
means X, and 14 years later a Presi- 
dent of the United States can simply 
say, "No, no, wait a minute; that is not 
what the treaty means; here is what 
the treaty means," and pull out docu- 
ments and information which was 
never in front of one of those Senators 
when they voted— even Senator Buck- 
ley, of New York, said that the reason 
he was voting against it was that it did 
not allow him to do the very things 
that President Reagan says it did 
allow them to do secretly— if one is al- 
lowed to do that, then you do not need 
a U.S. Senate ever to ratify any treaty. 
Then any President could at any time 
come forward and merely say, "Sorry, 
folks, we had secret negotiations over 
here. This is what the treaty really 
means," and push forward the secret 
interpretation and try to say to 
people, "This is what we meant all 
along. The U.S. Senate interpretation 
is irrelevant." 

Mr. President, that is a constitution- 
al issue. The Constitution of the 
United States says that you cannot 
have a law of the land without the 
Senate's ratification. What the Senate 
interpreted it as and ratified it as is 
critical to what that law of the land is. 
We all know that this President has 
not cared too much about that. We 
have seen instance after instance of 
willingness to reinterpret the law, to 
have executive fiat, to determine what 
we will do. The most, recent instance 
of that is this process by which we saw 
the Iran scandal unfold. 

I believe that what we are talking 
about here is not just the power of the 
purse, not just the question of a 
treaty, not just the question of wheth- 
er the Republicans are going to ob- 
struct everything that comes forward, 
but is really the prerogative of the 
U.S. Senate and the question of 
whether we will uphold the law of the 
land. 



Mr. President, I will try to wind up 
quickly, because other Senators are 
waiting. 

There is one other argument made 
by some of my colleagues. They say 
that they will not allow the consider- 
ation of any bill which is allowed to • 
have language which does not let us 
undercut the SALT II Treaty. Mr. 
President, time after time, the Secre- 
tary of Defense, Caspar Weinberger, 
has warned us that without increases 
in defense spending, the United States 
could not stop "the Soviet attempt to 
achieve a position of global military 
superiority." 

Yet in deciding to abandon the 
SALT II Treaty, the administration 
did the one thing that will permit the 
Soviets to in fact achieve a position of 
numerical superiority no matter how 
much money the Congress were to ap- 
propriate. 

Every military expert who has testi- 
fied before the Congress has agreed 
that the Soviets can flood their coun- 
try with new nuclear weapons once 
the United States abandoned the 
treaty, at a far faster rate than we can 
provide that kind of nuclear weaponry 
and they can double their nuclear 
stockpiles by the early 1990's. 

Gen. Bennie Davis, Commander in 
Chief of the Strategic Air Command, 
told the Senate in March 1985— 

The Soviet Union, due to its production 
base, has an enormous capability to field 
systems. If they were to break out of the 
treaty limits of SALT II, the disparity be- 
tween the number of warheads held by the 
Soviet Union and the United States would 
be significant. 

Now, there have been some issues of 
compliance with the SALT II Treaty, 
and they have been raised by both 
sides appropriately through the proc- 
ess of consultation. But, Mr. President, 
there has been no question that the 
Soviets have scrupulously kept to the 
numerical limits of that treaty. In 
order to comply with the treaty, the 
Soviet Union from 1972 until 1985 re- 
moved more than 1,000 land-based and 
233 submarine-based ballistic missiles 
as new weapons have entered the 
force. Without the limits of SALT II, 
the Soviets did not have to dismantle 
one of those weapons. In the same 
period, the United States has disman- 
tled 320 land-based missiles and 544 
submarine-based missiles. 

So, Mr. President, left in place those 
SALT limits become more important 
than ever before, and I think it is par- 
ticularly important that we do not 
abandon those limits but, certainly, 
Mr. President, we ought to have the 
right to vote on the issue. We ought to 
have the right to vote on the issue. 

Mr. President, more than 30 years 
ago, President Dwight Eisenhower, 
having seen the beginning of the nu- 
clear arms race, issued the following 
warning: 



• * * the true security problem of the day 

• ' * is not merely man against man or 
nation against nation, it is man against war. 

* * * When we get to the point, as one day 
we will, that both sides know that in any 
outbreak of hostilities, regardless of the ele- 
ment of surprise, destruction will be both 
reciprocal and complete, possibly we will 
have sense enough to meet at the confer- 
ence table with the understanding that the 
era of armaments has ended and the human 
race must conform its notion to this truth 
or die. 

George Kennan has said: 

We have gone on piling weapon upon 
weapon, missile upon missile, new levels of 
destructiveness upon old ones, helplessly, 
almost involuntarily, like victims of some 
sort of hypnotism, like men in a dream, like 
lemmings headed for the sea. 

This arms control filibuster is irre- 
sponsible, Mr. President, because it 
denies the American people the oppor- 
tunity to have these issues debated on 
the floor of the Senate and denies the 
American people the opportunity to 
vote on these issues. 

I hope our colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle will permit the U.S. 
Senate to work its business and cease 
their policy of obstructionism on issue 
after issue after issue. 

I yield my time. 

Several Senators addressed the 
Chair. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Conrad). Let me indicate that the time 
for morning business has now expired. 

The majority leader. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the time 
has more than expired by 3 minutes. I 
ask the Chair to enforce the order. 

Mr. President, there are obviously 
others who want to speak in morning 
business. 

EXTENSION OF MORNING BUSINESS 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that morning busi- 
ness be extended and that Senators 
may speak for not to exceed 10 min- 
utes each and that should be the end 
of morning business for today. We 
then go on to the next matter which 
will require a rollcall vote. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The Senator from South Carolina. 

Mr. THURMOND. Mr. President, I 
have listened to this colloquy with 
great interest this morning and feel 
obliged to remind my colleagues why 
Senators on this side, including Sena- 
tors who serve on the Armed Services 
Committee, have been unwilling to 
take up the Defense authorization bill. 

Mr. President, the reason is entirely 
related to the inclusion of the provi- 
sion known as the Levin-Nunn amend- 
ment, which I believe is detrimental to 
our national security interests. 

It is not in our national security in- 
terests to require by statute that the 
President follow the more restrictive 
of two plausible interpretations of the 
ABM Treaty, when the Soviet Union is 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23097 



seeking an even more restrictive inter- 
pretation at the negotiating table. The 
Levin-Nunn amendment would have 
that effect. 

It is not in our national security in- 
terests to seek to bind the United 
States to an interpretation under the 
ABM Treaty to which the Soviet 
Union is not bound. The Levin-Nunn 
amendment would have that effect. 

It is not in the national security in- 
terests to grant statutorily to the 
House of Representatives the unilater- 
al ability to compel the United States 
to follow for the next 2 years a par- 
ticular foreign policy regarding our re- 
lations with the Soviet Union. The 
Levin/Nunn amendment would have 
that effect. 

In short, Mr. President, at a time 
when the United States and the Soviet 
Union are engaged in negotiations in- 
volving the very matter addressed by 
the amendment, and at a time when 
we are very close to agreement on not 
merely limiting but actually reducing 
nuclear weapons, the Levin-Nunn 
amendment jeopardizes the prospects 
for reaching the best possible outcome 
for our long term national security. 

Mr. President, there have been no 
less than three attempts by the distin- 
guished ranking member of the Senate 
Armed Services Committee Senator 
Warner, to propose a means by which 
we could proceed with consideration of 
the defense authorization bill and still 
protect fully the rights and options of 
the original authors of the Levin- 
Nunn amendment. My distinguished 
colleague from Alaska noted this 
morning his efforts to devise a means 
to get on with consideration of the 
bill. There has been no lack of options 
proposed by this side to consider fully 
the provisions of the Levin-Nunn 
amendment without holding the de- 
fense authorization bill hostage. 

Mr. President. No Member of this 
body has a greater respect for the de- 
fense authorization process than this 
Senator. But I remind my colleagues 
that providing for the national securi- 
ty is what that process is all about. In- 
cluding the Levin-Nunn provision in 
the bill would, in my opinion, be con- 
trary to that central objective of pro- 
viding what is best for our national se- 
curity. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from California. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I did 
not expect to come to the floor this 
morning for this purpose. But I have 
been treated to an interesting little 
drama over the past hour or so. 

For those who are perhaps watching 
for the first time, this same little 
drama— I do not mean to rob it of its 
dramatic value— but I am compelled to 
tell them that it is a summer rerun. 
We have had this little debate at least 
three or four times earlier this year. 
That is why, Mr. President, it is a to- 



tally phony issue to say that what we 
are doing here is arguing about wheth- 
er or not we should have a vote and a 
debate on the Levin-Nunn amend- 
ment. Indeed, we have had extensive 
debate on the Levin-Nunn amend- 
ment. The Levin-Nunn amendment is 
all about interpretation over the AMB 
Treaty. We have had all kinds of 
debate on whether we should adhere 
to the broad or the narrow interpreta- 
tion of that antiballistic missile treaty. 

This is a summer rerun, but I note 
with interest that there is a cast of 
new characters. I do not know where 
they were when we had these earlier 
debates but those who I have heard 
pleading for the opportunity to debate 
this issue and to cast a vote on tbe de- 
fense authorization bill somehow were 
not very interested earlier when the 
chairman of the Senate Armed Serv- 
ices Committee, Senator Nunn, took a 
great deal of time in a special order to 
argue the case for the narrow inter- 
pretation and when I took a special 
order and spent a good deal of time 
putting into the Record the argument 
for the broad interpretation. 

Mr. President, what is at stake here 
is very simple. It is an amendment 
that was attached at the last moment 
in the deliberations in the Senate 
Armed Services Committee, which 
transformed what would otherwise 
have been a bill going to the floor with 
uananimous approval into a bill that, 
because of that amendment which was 
added to the authorization bill on an 
almost straight party-line vote, it 
transformed the bill into one that 
came to the floor with a straight 
party-line vote. 

And that is worth nothing, Mr. 
President, because it is a departure 
from the bipartisan tradition of that 
committee. For all the years that I 
have served on it, it is the first time 
that we have encountered that kind of 
partisan division. And why? Well, be- 
cause it is an important amendment, 
one that has no business being on the 
defense authorization bill, as the Sen- 
ator from Alaska earlier stated. 

Now those who want an opportunity 
to vote on it will have an opportunity 
to add that as an amendment to the 
State authorization bill that author- 
izes the spending for the operations of 
the Department of State, where it 
may properly belong, if it belongs any- 
where. 

But as a matter of jurisdiction, it be- 
longs on that bill and not on this one. 
And the reason that it is attached to 
this one is because, under the quaint 
rules of this body, what we try to do in 
any number of instances through par- 
tisan jockeying is attach amendments 
to those bills that we think which for 
other reasons the President will not 
veto. And that is what is going on 
here. That is what this game is all 
about. 



This amendment could be offered as 
a freestanding piece of legislation or it 
could be offered as an amendment to a 
bill where it rightfully belongs, the 
Department of State authorization. 
Why has it been offered to the defense 
authorization bill? It is to jam down 
the throat of the President of the 
United States a measure that he 
cannot sign. But they have attached it 
to one that he wants very much to 
sign because it is essential that we 
fund the appropriations of the armed 
services. 

So let no one be deluded by what is 
going on here. We have had the 
debate three or four times and, of 
course, we will have it again, because 
in about 6 months' time we are going 
to actually be compelled to consider 
the question as to whether or not the 
United States should continue with 
the ABM Treaty. Believe me, we will 
have the opportunity to discuss it. 

But this amendment compels all 
funding for the Strategic Defense Ini- 
tiative to be conditioned upon the 
narrow interpretation, an interpreta- 
tion rejected by the Soviet Union as is 
clear from the negotiating record of 
the ABM Treaty. And we will differ on 
that. We have. That is what Senator 
Nunn and I differed on at such great 
length early this spring, when those 
who have spoken this morning appar- 
ently were not sufficiently interested 
to participate in the debate. 

Mr. President, this amendment sub- 
stantively is in fact an arms control 
amendment. And indeed I think the 
junior Senator from Massachusetts 
made that quite clear in his lengthy 
discussion this morning. It is an arms 
control provision that has no business 
being on the defense authorization 
bill. It would first, by operation of the 
narrow interpretation, stretch out the 
SDI Program. It would cost us billions; 
it would cost us years. So substantively 
it has great importance. 

Beyond that, the junior Senator 
from Massachusetts was concerned 
with the prerogatives of the Senate. 
He was intensely concerned with the 
prerogatives of the committee. Well, 
as a member of the committee, and he 
is not, I suppose I should be grateful 
to him for that concern. I will tell him 
there are more important things than 
the prerogatives of that committee. 
The welfare of this country is infinite- 
ly more important. 

The kind of thing that we would be 
doing to SDI with this amendment is 
simply unacceptable. And the Presi- 
dent of the United States, if this bill 
ever got to his desk, would indeed veto 
it. That is no secret. He has said so. 
There are enough signatures on a 
letter to the President indicating that 
Senators would sustain that veto so 
there is no doubt about the outcome 
of the issue. This provision will not 



23098 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



become law during this Presidency. So 
let there be no suspense about that. 

Let me also say, this is the same 
President, whom so many have spent 
time bashing this morning as being 
anti-arms control, who has brought 
the United States to the threshold of 
an INF agreement. And these Senators 
who are so busy bashing him this 
morning, whether they intend it or 
not, have the effect of seeking to un- 
dercut his position and that of his ne- 
gotiators, the U.S. negotiators, in 
Geneva at the very moment when we 
are engaged in critical negotiations to 
see whether or not intermediate-range 
nuclear missiles can be removed from 
Europe. 

Mr. President, the only reason to 
have this amendment on this bill is to 
compel the President either to veto 
the entire thing or to swallow some- 
thing that is unacceptable. The Con- 
stitution of the United States assigns 
the exclusive authority for the negoti- 
ation of treaties and for their interpre- 
tation to the executive branch, not to 
the Senate. The Senate has a very im- 
portant role and it is a clear role. It is 
ratification. We can take reservations. 
We can add qualifications during that 
process. But it is not the function of 
this body, 14 years later, to tell the ex- 
ecutive what the interpretation was at 
the time that it was signed. 

Mr. President, there are too many 
on this floor who would be Secretary 
of State, too many who would be 
President. Let them run for President. 
This one did. He was elected to repre- 
sent all the people of the United 
States, not once but twice and by over- 
whelming majorities in both elections. 
And they are seeking by this effort— in 
which they ask, "Why can't we vote on 
the defense bill?"— to embarrass this 
President, who is seeking an arms con- 
trol agreement, at the very time that 
he is very near to it. 

Mr. President, let me just say that if 
they want a vote on the defense au- 
thorization bill, they can have one 
very simply. Remove the Levin-Nunn 
amendment and they will then have 
left that bill that would have gone to 
the floor from the committee with 
unanimous bipartisan approval. And it 
will probably receive that kind of a 
vote on the floor without that amend- 
ment. With that amendment, when- 
ever it comes, on whatever piece of leg- 
islation to which it is appended, is 
going to again stir the same kind of 
debate that it has this morning. I hope 
it will be better debate than there has 
been this morning. 

We should not, I think, take advan- 
tage of the procedures 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator's time has expired. 

Mr. WILSON. Then I will conclude, 
Mr. President, by saying we should not 
take advantage of the procedures of 
the Senate to compel an unwise action 
on the part of the Senate to force the 



President to veto a defense authoriza- 
tion bill, a bill, without this amend- 
ment, that he is eager to sign. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from South Carolina. 

Mr. HOLLINGS. I thank the distin- 
guished Chair. 

Mr. President, the Senator from 
California said: "Those who want to be 
President should run. The current one 
did and he was elected." 

This Senator from South Carolina 
did, too, but it turned into a covert ac- 
tivity. 

Let me say this: I have supported 
the leader in bringing this bill up, but 
I will not stand any longer hearing 
again and again this morning the Sen- 
ator from Massachusetts talking about 
repudiating the treaty. If there is re- 
pudiation, it is on the part of the Sen- 
ator from Georgia and Michigan ana 
Massachusetts. We will get to that one 
day. The Senator from Georgia had 3 
days on the floor to tell his story and I 
never have been given that time or the 
circumstances because we could not 
get into the bill. I support Senator 
Byrd's effort to bring it up. 

But if there is repudiation, it lies 
with the Levin-Nunn interpretation of 
a broad or narrow view of the treaty. 
Everyone should read this treaty. You 
could have been a Senator when we 
ratified it in 1972 and you could know 
in a second that there is only one in- 
terpretation, and that is the legal in- 
terpretation—and it is the interpreta- 
tion advanced by President Reagan. 

I wish we had a court test where the 
Supreme Court would look at the 
treaty and its negotiating record and 
give its interpretation in 10 minutes 
and say, "That is nonsense about the 
ratification." 

Let us begin knowing that the U.S. 
delegation was instructed to restrict 
the testing and developing of future 
systems in space, and they tried re- 
peatedly to accomplish that goal. 

I was in the tent, as they called it, 
when negotiations were occurring in 
Helsinki, in August 1971. Let me read 
the statements of General Allison— 
the JCS representative to the Arms 
negotiations— and those of several 
other key individuals involved in ABM 
negotiations. Lt. Royal Allison stated 
on June 21, 1972, in a letter to the 
Chairman of the JCS— the following 
as it relates to future ABM systems: 

Constraints in the treaty apply to deploy- 
ments only. Research and development are 
not constrained. 

The U.S. delegation, under instructions, 
sought a clear-cut ban on deployment of 
future ABM systems, but the Soviets would 
not agree. Hence they finally agreed and ini- 
tialled interpretative statements (quoting 
Agreed Statement D) * * * we should say 
that there is an obligation not to deploy 
such systems without taking certain speci- 
fied and agreed steps; i.e., in the event such 
systems are created in the future, specific 
limitations on them would be subject to dis- 
cussion and agreement. 



Mr. President, look at the treaty 
itself and you will quickly see that 
ABM systems are described in article 
II. The words are the language of pre- 
cision. Raymond Garthoff, another 
negotiator, time and time again said, 
"We want it to be precise." Look at 
Gerard Smith, our chief negotiator. In 
his book "Doubletalk" he said the 
treaty was drawn by lawyers with very 
precise language in five pages, and it 
took a year and they haggled over 
each word. 

Article II, describing the parameters 
of ABM systems, states unequivocally 
that they are all current. You will see 
the "current" in the article "Currently 
consisting of" I quote and then, by 
words of specificity, in subsection 2 of 
article II it is stated, "To include those 
operational, under construction, un- 
dergoing tests, undergoing overhaul, 
mothballed." All refer to current tech- 
nology—that is the technology of 1972. 

So the restriction in article V as to 
deploying future mobile systems, 
whether in space or elsewhere, refers 
to the ABM systems described in arti- 
cle II. Any lawyer will tell you that. 

These negotiators, if you just go to 
the next article, article VI, used the 
word "future." So you do not have to 
worry about implicit or explicit mean- 
ings or whatever the Senator from 
Georgia says. The negotiators knew 
the word future and used it. 

Read the Nunn documents and you 
will see through the smoke. He keeps 
filling up the record with "implicit" in 
the ratification. There was not any- 
thing implicit. Everything was precise. 
And our negotiators, failing to get a 
Soviet agreement to ban future sys- 
tems, came up with agreed statement 
D. Again, they used precise language. 
Let me read it: "In order to ensure ful- 
fillment of the obligation not to 
deploy." Note, they did not say any- 
thing about testing. They did not say 
anything about research. Agreed state- 
ment D states, "In order to ensure ful- 
fillment of our obligation not to 
deploy ABM systems and their compo- 
nents, except as provided in article III 
of the treaty, the parties agree that in 
the event ABM systems based on 
other physical principles, and includ- 
ing components capable of substitut- 
ing for ABM interceptor missiles, 
ABM launchers, or ABM radars, are 
created in the future, specific limita- 
tions on such systems and their com- 
ponents would be subject to discussion 
in accordance with article XIII and 
agreement in accordance with article 
XIV of the treaty." 

Precisely this language does not 
limit research, testing, and develop- 
ment. 

That came out again in recent 
Senate testimony by Ambassador 
Nitze. Referring again to Ambassador 
Smith, I quote his language from testi- 
mony in 1972. Ambassador Smith: 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23099 



One of the agreed understandings says 
that if ABM technology is created based on 
different physical principles . . . develop- 
ment work, research, is not prohibited, but 
deployment of systems using those new 
principles . . . would not be permitted 
unless both parties agree by amending the 
treaty. 

So, he referred to agreed statement 
D. There is no broad and narrow inter- 
pretation. We know. Let the treaty 
speak for itself. Negotiator Smith re- 
sponded to a question from Senator 
Goldwater, as follows: 

This is Senator Barry Goldwater. 

Are we and the Soviets precluded from 
the development of the laser as an ABM? 

Mr. Smith replied, tersely: 

No, sir. 

Let me quote Gen. Bruce Palmer, 
testifying before the Senate Armed 
Services Committee: 

There is no limit on R&D in the futuristic 
systems. 

I will try to finish my statement 
quickly. We must allow the treaty to 
speak for itself. Everyone talked about 
precise language and now we start run- 
ning into trickery. 

You know, we forget the trickery in 
the Iran-Contra affair. The Congress 
and the Senate played for years with 
that Boland amendment, saying: Yes, 
you could give humanitarian aid but 
you could not give military assistance. 

No, you could not have intelligence 
agencies, whether for DOD or the 
CIA, doing anything, and we place it 
on a mammoth continuing resolution. 
The White House signs it and says, 
We'll keep on going because the Na- 
tional Security Council is not restrict- 
ed. 

The last Boland amendment says, 
Get a tin cup and go out and beg. It 
rather suggested that to keep the Con- 
tras going it was necessary to solicit 
help of Third World countries. Now 
you have the same trickery and game 
going on with the ABM Treaty over 
the SDI. 

The Senators from Michigan and 
Georgia teamed up to talk about a 
narrow interpretation and that we are 
restricted by treaty or by law. It is ab- 
solute nonsense. 

The treaty speaks for itself as the 
one general, legal interpretation. The 
opponents of SDI often use Senator 
Scoop Jackson to backup their cause. 
It's bunk. Scoop Jackson never re- 
ferred to the ABM Treaty during the 
debate of it on the Senate floor. You 
ought to read that record. He refers to 
the SALT I; in fact, all of the Senators 
were talking generally about SALT I 
at that particular time. 

Look at that record and you will see 
Senator Mansfield standing down in 
the well saying, "Look how we are 
twiddling our thumbs." Pleading for 
Members to come to the floor. Please, 
period! There was not any dissension. 
We went on as a group, realizing 
thankfully that we had finally gotten 



an ABM Treaty that did not restrict 
the testing, the research, and the de 
velopment. It restricted the deploy- 
ment. And thankful for that, we got 
into the SALT I ratification and we 
were talking about restrictions there. 

I appreciate the time given me on 
this subject. Very briefly, let me say 
this: Let us quit talking about the 
broad and narrow interpretation or 
the commonly accepted interpretation. 
Let us stop having Senators come to 
the floor and talk about repudiating a 
treaty that I happened to vote for— 
that they are not familiar with and 
have probably not read. We have lived 
by this particular interpretation for 15 
years and now we come up with the 
trickery on the defense authorization 
bill. 

But the trickery and the nonsense 
now of repudiation? The truth is, the 
legal interpretation allows research 
and testing. The Senators from Geor- 
gia and Michigan know it. If they 
want to restrict SDI they have got 
hundreds of restrictions in that par- 
ticular bill. Tell them to spell it out. 
But do not give us this pontifical non- 
sense about the aura of a treaty and 
that we are bound not to test and we 
are bound not to develop. 

That is absolutely false. The treaty 
allows it. Our negotiators failed to 
achieve such limitations and we now 
see an effort 15 years later to do it by 
unconstitutional legislative mandate. 
The Soviets are testing and deploying 
in violation of the treaty. We should 
at least do what the treaty allows and 
proceed with SDI research and testing. 
Thank you very much. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from Indiana. 

Mr. QUAYLE. Mr. President, let me 
try to put in perspective where we are 
and how we got here. 

Very late in the Armed Services 
Committee markup, this Levin-Nunn 
amendment was attached. It was at- 
tached to the Armed Services Commit- 
tee markup. There was vehement ob- 
jection, there was discussion, and it 
was voted through. 

I presume the reason it was attached 
in the Armed Services Committee, 
rather than bringing it to the floor 
where it should have been, because I 
believe it is nongermane to the de- 
fense authorization bill, is because 
they knew they would have problems 
getting 60 votes because they would 
face a filibuster on the floor. 

Worried about a filibuster on the 
floor, they decided, for tactical rea- 
sons, to put it in the defense authori- 
zation bill and thereby force the oppo- 
nents of that particular amendment to 
have to block it not with 40 votes, or 
41 votes, but 51 votes. 

I understand their tactical move. 
But I think everybody understands 
what the rules of the Senate are. 

The rules of the Senate: There are 
some protections still left for the mi- 



nority and one of the protections left 
to the minority is extended debate. 
Therefore, it is perfectly within the 
right of those that object to what I be- 
lieve is a nongermane amendment that 
should not be on this bill to proceed to 
filibuster against the bill on a motion 
to proceed. 

If the majority cannot get 60 votes, 
then it is their responsibility to figure 
out what to do if they want the bill to 
go forward. 

They can keep bringing it up and 
forcing vote after vote, like we have 
done on campaign financing. They can 
figure out an alternative way to pro- 
ceed on this. We have offered, this 
side, three different alternatives to 
move the defense authorization bill. 
Everyone knows what the rules of the 
Senate are. So let us not get into who 
is obstructing what on the defense au- 
thorization bill. The votes have been 
taken and the votes are not there to 
proceed. 

When the votes are not there to pro- 
ceed, if the majority wants a bill, and I 
presume they do, which I would like to 
see, then it is their responsibility to 
come forth with some sort of alterna- 
tive. Otherwise there is not going to be 
any bill. That is where we are today. 
We are debating this as we go out. 

But let us not forget that this has 
very important national security impli- 
cations. It is not a debate on whether 
you are for a certain level of funding 
in the defense authorization budget. It 
is not a debate on SDI or MX. It is not 
a debate on what the mix is between 
strategic and tactical weapons. It is 
not a debate on what the pay or readi- 
ness capability of the men and women 
in uniform should be. 

This debate goes to a very funda- 
mental national security issue of who, 
in fact, is going to negotiate for the 
United States of America with the 
Soviet Union to produce an arms con- 
trol accord. 

This administration is adamantly op- 
posed to the Levin-Nunn amendment. 
The Secretary of Defense is adamant- 
ly opposed to this and is supporting 
our filibuster and our right to delay 
this bill until we can get some sort of 
accommodation. 

Believe me, this goes to a very fun- 
damental point between the executive 
branch and the Congress: Who is 
going to negotiate? Furthermore, as 
the Senator from South Carolina and 
the Senator from California have 
pointed out, it goes to the question of 
whose constitutional responsibility is 
it to interpret treaties and to imple- 
ment treaties. 

I would suggest, and I do not believe 
I would have a dissent— if there is, I 
would like to hear it— that the consti- 
tutional authority is vested in the ex- 
ecutive branch, in the President, to in- 
terpret and to implement treaties. 
This Congress has the authority, and 



23100 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



this Senate specifically has the consti- 
tutional responsibility, to approve 
treaties, not to interpret and imple- 
ment. Just to approve. 

Certainly, the Congress of the 
United States has the power of the 
purse and can cut off appropriations 
of funds for certain recommendations 
that the administration has made. If, 
in fact, the administration comes for- 
ward and says they want to have a test 
on the legal interpretation of the 
ABM Treaties, which I hope they do 
sometime, at that time the Congress is 
certainly within its right to deny the 
funds for that. 

I have heard it suggested today that 
15 years ago, "Boy, we sure interpret- 
ed that treaty to what is called the 
narrow interpretation." 

But the Senator from South Caroli- 
na was here and talked about it in 
1972. He said, "We did not focus on 
that. Do not give me that nonsense 
that we talked about what the correct 
interpretation was on what exotic sys- 
tems and other physical principles 
were in the agreement. The majority 
leader had to call people to the floor 
just to get them to talk about the 
treaty itself. Do not tell us, then, that 
there was a lot of focus on that treaty 
on that particular point 15 years ago. 
It is simply not the case." 

So, where are we now? We are now 
in a situation where we are not going 
to have progress as of this day on a de- 
fense authorization bill. The reason 
we are not is because there is a funda- 
mental dispute. I have heard Senators 
saying today, "I am for arms control; I 
am for peace; I am for a strong de- 
fense; all the good things in the 
world." 

But for those who are talking about 
how they want to see the arms control 
process go forward, this particular 
amendment and other amendments 
like it are not going to help our nego- 
tiators. Ask the people who sit down 
and eyeball the Soviet negotiators on a 
day-to-day basis, Mr. President, and 
see what they think about this amend- 
ment. Ask the people who are on the 
firing line, who have to sit down and 
work with these people to try to get an 
agreement, what they think about 
Congress trying to unilaterally impose 
their interpretation of the ABM 
Treaty. 

I can tell you what they said because 
they have told me. They do not like it. 
They wish Congress would knock it 
off. So do I. 

If Congress does not want to back 
off, we will debate the issue, probably 
not in the authorization bill. If not on 
that, on the appropriations. We will 
debate that this year and it will be a 
good, solid debate and I will welcome 
that debate. I hope people will go back 
and look at the record. 

I know the Senator from Georgia 
and the Senator from Michigan and 
others have done an exhaustive study 



on what our interpretation of the 
ABM Treaty ought to be. We will get 
to discuss the technicalities, the ambi- 
guities, and what we think the inter- 
pretation ought to be. 

Let me say one thing in conclusion, 
Mr. President. This is a dispute be- 
tween who is going to interpret and 
implement treaties. That is not the 
constitutional responsibility of this 
Senate. That is the constitutional re- 
sponsibility of the President. Further- 
more, make no doubt about it that this 
bill will be vetoed. So, we probably will 
go through an exercise of having a bill 
and sending it down, having it vetoed 
and then being back to square one. 

If we want a defense authorization 
bill, we have to come to an agreement, 
to an understanding. 

The majority has lost the votes to 
bring it up. The minority has been 
able to sustain the filibuster. When 
you lose, you lose. When you win, you 
win. 

But I would say if, in fact, you want 
to move forward, there are options. 
There are options that can be consid- 
ered and I hope that we can, in fact, 
find some options to consider. We 
have made three specific recommenda- 
tions on how we can move this bill. 
None of them have been accepted. All 
of them have been rejected. I say yes, 
we should move on, but we are not 
going to move ahead if we put the 
President in the position of having to 
come and negotiate more with the Con- 
gress than he has to negotiate with 
the Soviet counter parts in Geneva or 
elsewhere. 

I yield the floor. 

Mr. BUMPERS. Mr. President, there 
were numerous statements made on 
this floor this morning regarding arms 
control. I was not here, but I do want 
to point out two or three things. 

First, as you know, Mr. President, it 
is hard to follow arms control. I pick 
up the Post one morning that says 
Shevardnadze is optimistic. The next 
day I pick up the Post and George 
Shultz says, "We are very pessimistic." 
The next day, Shevardnadze is pessi- 
mistic and George Shultz is optimistic. 

We are down to the point where 
those intermediate-range missiles in 
Western Europe, this so-called INF 
Treaty to eliminate all the missiles in 
Europe in the intermediate range— 
and that is roughly 1,500- to 3,500-mile 
range— that is what this treaty is all 
about. 

I think it is an excellent treaty for 
us. I can tell you almost categorically I 
would vote for it if it ever got here. 
Why would not everybody in this 
place jump up and unanimously ap- 
prove a treaty where we dismantle 316 
warheads and the Soviets dismantle 
1,400? They are going to dismantle 
four times more warheads under this 
treaty than we will. I promise some- 
body will find flaws in that, figure 
that is a Soviet plot of some kind. 



They say, "Well, how are you going 
to verify it?" We suggested onsite veri- 
fication and, after a little consider- 
ation, the Soviets said, "OK, onsite 
verification is OK with us." And some 
of the defense contractors in this 
country told the President, "You must 
be out of your mind; we are not going 
to let them come tromping through 
our plants." So we had to back off on 
our proposal. 

The thing I want to point out, ard I 
have said this on the floor before but 
it does not seem to make an impact; I 
have never seen it printed in the press. 
I think it is really relevant. I think it 
is a phenomenon of sorts that nobody 
ever picks up on this. I am all for this 
treaty. Anything that reduces one war- 
head, in my opinion, will make civiliza- 
tion a little safer. But as I pointed out, 
we are going to dismantle 316 war- 
heads and we have been negotiating 
with the Soviets now for almost a year 
on this treaty, all over our 316 and 
their 1,400. 

Last November, President Reagan 
said, "We are not going to comply with 
the SALT Treaty anymore." That was 
the one that limited both sides to 
1,320 MIRV'd launchers— submarine, 
land-based, ICBM's, and bombers. He 
said, "We are not going to constrain 
ourselves any longer and we are not 
going to comply with that 1,320 limit. 
We are going to bust out of that." 

Here we had been debating about a 
year about dismantling 316 warheads. 
And, Mr. President, ever since the 
President made that decision not to 
comply with the SALT Treaty any- 
more, we have been adding 316 war- 
heads every 10 weeks. 

So, while I am for the INF Treaty 
and can hardly wait for it to get here 
to vote for it, I really do not under- 
stand all the folderol about it and ev- 
erybody getting so rhapsodic and 
saying, "Wouldn't this be wonderful?" 
I believe it would be wonderful to get 
rid of virtually all nuclear weapons on 
European soil. But while they have 
been negotiating, we have already 
added over a thousand warheads. In- 
stead of having 12,500, we are now up 
to about 13,500 during the time we 
have been negotiating over 316 war- 
heads. 

So, do not anybody be deceived about 
the nuclear arms race. It is going on 
apace and we are adding a number of 
warheads to our arsenal, just as the 
Soviet Union is. It would take about 
100 warheads on each side to decimate 
the planet, and we add that many 
about every 3 weeks. And everybody 
says, "Maybe we can get to 25,000 war- 
heads and we will really be safe then." 

On SDI, Paul Nitze, one of the best 
arms controllers this administration 
has ever had— the best, in my opinion, 
a pretty sensible guy— says he is for 
SDI if it meets two criteria. No. 1, it 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23101 



has to be cost effective; No. 2, it has to 
be survivable. 

When he says it has to be cost effec- 
tive, what it means is that it will have 
to cost the enemy more to overpower 
it or defeat it than it would cost us to 
deploy. 

In my opinion, it will fail on that 
ground. It would take me 30 seconds to 
explain that, so I will not get into it, 
except to say that, in my opinion, the 
Soviets, with decoys and other meth- 
ods, can defeat SDI. When it comes to 
cost effectiveness, it fails. When it 
comes to survivability, if the Soviets 
built an SDI, then our SDI is subject 
to being destroyed by theirs, just as 
theirs will be subject to being de- 
stroyed by ours. 

So then it will depend on whether 
Ronald Reagan or Mikhail Gorbachev 
hits the red button first. If we hit it 
first, we destroy his SDI. If he hits the 
red button first, he destroys our SDI. 

If we suddenly realized that our SDI 
had been destroyed in space, what do 
you think we would do? We would 
launch, because we would certainly 
assume that the Soviets were getting 
ready to launch. And vice versa. 

How long does the President have to 
make a decision, assuming that we 
have an SDI in space and the Soviets 
do not? If they decide to launch a first 
strike against the United States, do 
you know how long the President has 
to make a decision? Somewhere be- 
tween 40 and 90 seconds. I hope he is 
not out on the tennis court. 

I wrote a letter to General Abram- 
son saying that I would never vote for 
anything that does not have a man in 
the loop. I am not going to vote for 
SDI and stop the end of civilization by 
a malfunctioning computer chip. 

I said: "General, how are you going 
to activate this system? If the Presi- 
dent is asleep or out on the tennis 
court and you only have 40 to 90 sec- 
onds to make this decision, who is 
going to make it? I want a man in the 
loop, not a computer chip." 

He wrote back and said, "I couldn't 
agree with you more," but he did not 
say how that is going to happen. 
Maybe they are going to put Ollie 
North down in the basement of the 
Pentagon and let him decide. 

I guess when they say, "We favor a 
man in the loop," that does not neces- 
sarily mean the President. But I do 
not want some lieutenant colonel. I am 
a Marine. I am sympathetic to Marine 
lieutenant colonels. But I am not sure 
I want one to decide whether the v/ar 
is going to start or not— the war to end 
all wars. 

World War I and World War II were 
both designed to be the war that 
ended all wars. I am here to tell you 
that I am talking about the war that 
really is going to end all wars. We 
"ain't" joking this time. 

On SDI, here is General Chain, com- 
mander of all our SAC forces, and he 



is quoted in the August issue of Air 
Force magazine. Listen to this. He is 
talking about SDI, if we have SDI up 
there and the Soviets have SDI up 
there: 

As a result, General Chain predicted that 
unless mutual "caps" can be negotiated, 
"the day we end up with an SDI system on 
both sides" the US will have to up its strate- 
gic bomber force to between 1,000 and 2,000 
aircraft with a corresponding increase in ad- 
vanced cruise missiles. "If the Soviets build 
an SDI, that means that [SAC] will have to 
have a larger bomber force with greater 
standoff capability because the bomber will 
have to be the penetrator. So the [Advanced 
Technology] 'Stealth' bomber, rather than 
[being acquired in the limited] numbers 
that we are looking at right now, will have 
to go to very high numbers." 

If you do not understand what he is 
talking about, I will explain it. 

SDI is not effective against bombers. 
So we are going to build an SDI 
system out in space at the cost of $1 
trillion, minimum. The Soviets are 
going to build one of their own— $1 
trillion. And it is not even effective 
against bombers, not effective against 
cruise missiles, not effective against 
depressed trajectory missiles. 

So, what you have is this gigantic 
Maginot line in the sky. And what do 
we start doing? We are going to do 
what General Chain said: We are 
going to build 2,000 penetrating bomb- 
ers that will penetrate the Soviet 
Union, or we will fire cruise missiles 
from outside the Soviet Union. 

I guess the Soviets, so the rationale 
goes, will sit back and watch us do 
that and say, "Isn't this terrible?" Of 
course, the Soviet Union is not going 
to do that. They are going to build 
2,000 bombers, loaded with cruise mis- 
siles. 

So, what do you get for your trillion 
dollars? You get a worthless system up 
there that does nothing to preserve 
civilization. There is only one way to 
preserve civilization, and that is for 
the United States and the Soviet 
Union to sit down and do one thing — 
talk commonsense. 

Mr. President, I yield the floor. 



NUCLEAR TESTING LIMITS 

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. President, 
when the Government of the United 
States signed the Limited Test Ban 
Treaty of 1963, the Nonproliferation 
Treaty of 1968, and the Threshold 
Test Ban Treaty of 1974, this Nation 
gave its solemn pledge to continue ne- 
gotiations toward a comprehensive 
ban on all nuclear explosions, includ- 
ing underground tests. 

This administration's policy with re- 
spect to nuclear test ban negotiations 
has placed this Nation in a deplorable 
position of noncompliance with our 
treaty obligations. The administration 
argues that a test ban must be delayed 
until that golden age "when we do not 
need to depend on nuclear deterrence 



to ensure international security and 
stability." How many years or decades 
of an escalating arms race are likely to 
transpire in the meantime? 

And if someday we manage to satisfy 
the administration's condition of 
eliminating our dependence on nuclear 
weapons to ensure international stabil- 
ity, why, at that late date, would we 
even need a test ban? What purpose 
would it serve? 

Other nations, especially nonweapon 
states that have signed the Nonprolif- 
eration Treaty, are wondering why the 
United States Government is appar- 
ently willing to cooperate with the 
U.S.S.R. in the installation of the 
highly intrusive CORRTEX yield esti- 
mation equipment to verify continued 
testing at high levels of explosive 
power, but not in the installation of 
less intrusive seismic methods that, 
unlike CORRTEX, would be useful for 
restricting tests to dramatically re- 
duced yields. 

Has the President shown good faith 
in his dealings with the Congress on 
the nuclear testing issue? He has not. 
Consider the terms of the White 
House— congressional compromise on 
nuclear testing in October of last year, 
and what has transpired since Reykja- 
vik: 

First, the President committed him- 
self to prompt ratification of the 
TTBT/PNE Treaties with or without 
prior Soviet assent to a package of en- 
hanced verification measures, and 
then reversed himself a few months 
later when he submitted these treaties 
with the unprecedented requirement 
that they be ratified a second time, 
after Soviet assent to CORRTEX 
monitoring had been obtained; 

Second, following ratification and 
United States-Soviet agreement on im- 
proved verification measures, he prom- 
ised immediate parallel negotiations to 
limit nuclear tests; 

Third, the President stated his sup- 
port for the ultimate attainment of a 
total ban, and his determination "to 
take practical steps in the near future 
toward this goal", and 

Fourth, he stated that his own posi- 
tion was consistent with the broad 
congressional desire to limit nuclear 
tests. 

Moreover, he placed the above com- 
mitments squarely in the context of a 
resolution of the House-Senate dead- 
lock on the fiscal year 1987 defense 
authorization bill. The choice at that 
time was between the House position 
of an immediate 1 kiloton threshold 
ban and the Senate position of swift 
ratification of the TTBT/PNE Trea- 
ties followed by testing negotiations. 
The path subsequently pursued by ad- 
ministration—continued unrestrained 
testing at 150 kilotons— is outside the 
boundaries of any potential compro- 
mise between these two positions, and 
thus represents an obvious breach of 



23102 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



faith, no matter what side of the nu- 
clear testing issue you happen to be 
on. 

It is against this background of com- 
plete administration intransigence on 
the negotiation of further nuclear test 
limitations that Senator Hatfield and 
I, joined by 31 additional Senators, are 
cosponsoring binding legislation of 
limited duration that could provide 
the basis of a meaningful test-ban 
option for our national security policy. 

The Underground Nuclear Explo- 
sions Control Act of 1987, which we 
intend to offer as an amendment to 
the defense authorization bill, is not a 
comprehensive ban. Instead, it is in- 
tended to create the opportunity for 
reducing the explosive power of 
United States and Soviet nuclear tests 
to the lowest level consistent with ef- 
fective verification and maintenance 
of a reliable nuclear deterrent. Our 
legislation expresses an expert techni- 
cal and political consensus on these 
matters outside the administration 
which we feel the majority of the 
Senate could endorse. 

The limitations contained in our pro- 
posed amendment would slow the pace 
of innovation in nuclear weaponry, 
reduce mutually perceived require- 
ments for new strategic weapons aris- 
ing from mutual fears of future vul- 
nerabilities in nuclear deterrent 
forces, and strengthen the moral and 
political basis of our nonproliferation 
policy by signaling reduced superpow- 
er reliance on nuclear weaponry to 
ensure security. 

In drafting this legislation, we have 
sought to satisfy frequently expressed 
concerns regarding effective verifica- 
tion and continued confidence in the 
reliability of the nuclear deterrent in 
order to afford Senators an opportuni- 
ty for an up or down vote on the criti- 
cal question: "Is it in the interest of 
national and international security to 
slow down the nuclear weapons tech- 
nology race with the U.S.S.R.?" 

The 33 cosponsors of this legislation 
believe it is, and we ask our colleagues 
to join us in cosponsoring the Under- 
ground Nuclear Explosions Control 
Act of 1987 and voting for it when it is 
offered as an amendment to pending 
legislation in the weeks ahead. 

Sixty national church, labor, envi- 
ronmental, professional, and arms con- 
trol organizations representing mil- 
lions of Americans have endorsed the 
Hatfield-Kennedy Nuclear Explosions 
Control Act. At its annual meeting in 
June of this year, the United States 
Conference of Mayors endorsed an im- 
mediate suspension of United States 
nuclear testing, contingent on a simi- 
lar Soviet suspension of nuclear test- 
ing. Mr. President, the American 
people, like the rest of the world's citi- 
zens, are demanding a nuclear test 
ban. 

My colleagues and I have received a 
number of letters and memoranda 



from experts concerning nuclear test 
verification and other nuclear weap- 
ons issues, and I ask that these be in- 
serted in the Record along with a de- 
scriptive summary of the proposed nu- 
clear testing legislation and additional 
supporting material. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

S. 1106 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 

This Act may be cited as the "Under- 
ground Nuclear Explosions Control Act of 
1987". 

SEC 2. FINDINGS. 

The Congress makes the following find- 
ings: 

(1) The national interest of the United 
States would be served by the achievement 
of mutual, verifiable nuclear arms reduc- 
tions with the Soviet Union and by mutual, 
verifiable limits on the number and yield of 
future underground nuclear explosions con- 
ducted by both nations. 

(2) A two-year, mutual moratorium by the 
United States and the Soviet Union on vir- 
tually all underground nuclear explosions 
above a verifiable low-yield threshold would 
be a crucial first step by both nations 
toward achieving the goals described in 
paragraph ( 1 ). 

(3) A two-year, mutual moratorium on un- 
derground nuclear explosions above a verifi- 
able low-yield threshold would constitute a 
good faith step toward fulfilling the obliga- 
tions of the United States and the Soviet 
Union under article VI of the Nonprolifera- 
tion Treaty to pursue "effective measures 
relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms 
race at an early date" and under article I of 
the Limited Test Ban Treaty to seek "the 
permanent banning of all nuclear test ex- 
plosions, including all such explosions un- 
derground." 

(4) A level of weapon reliability sufficient 
to deter the use of nuclear stockpiles can be 
maintained at a greatly reduced rate and 
yield for underground nuclear test explo- 
sions. 

(5) The task of monitoring the yields of 
explosions for compliance with a low- 
threshold moratorium can be made consid- 
erably easier by limiting test explosions to 
one small test area composed of strong-cou- 
pling rock, thereby allowing detection-iden- 
tification of any off-site nuclear explosion, 
regardless of yield, to serve as sufficient evi- 
dence of violation of the moratorium. 

(6) A two-year moratorium on any under- 
ground nuclear test which has an explosive 
power greater than one kiloton could be 
verified with a high degree of confidence if 
the current external seismic monitoring net- 
work were supplemented by three in-coun- 
try networks, each composed of four sta- 
tions, deployed in the vicinity of each na- 
tion's primary test site and in regions where 
peaceful nuclear explosions may have cre- 
ated suitable decoupling cavities in thick 
salt deposits. 

(7) A joint research project between the 
United States and the Soviet Union to de- 
termine the number, type, and locations of 
additional in-country seismic monitoring 
stations necessary to verify long-term com- 
pliance with the limitations of a low-thresh- 
old test ban treaty would contribute signifi- 



cantly to the prospect of concluding such a 
treaty in the future. 

SEC 3. LIMITATIONS ON NUCLEAR TESTING. 

(a) In General.— Subject to subsection (b), 
during the two-year period beginning one 
hundred and eighty days after the date of 
the enactment of this Act, funds may not be 
obligated or expended by any department or 
agency to conduct an underground nuclear 
explosion— 

(1) with a yield greater than one kiloton, 
except for two designated test explosions, 
each with a yield not exceeding fifteen kilo- 
tons; 

(2) at a location that is not part of a single 
designated test area; and 

(3) unless a public announcement of a pro- 
posed explosion has been made at least 
thirty days before the date of the explosion. 

(b) Termination of Restriction.— The re- 
striction in subsection (a) shall cease to 
apply if, after the restriction becomes effec- 
tive— 

(1) the President certifies to Congress 
that the Soviet Union— 

(A) has conducted an underground nucle- 
ar explosion having a joint seismic yield es- 
timate which indicates a yield greater than 
one kiloton, except for two designated ex- 
plosions with a joint seismic yield estimate 
indicating a yield not greater than fifteen 
kilotons; or 

(B) has conducted an underground nucle- 
ar explosion at a location that is not part of 
a single designated test area; or 

(2) the President certifies to Congress 
that the Soviet Union— 

(A) has refused to implement reciprocal, 
in-country monitoring arrangements; and 

(B) Congress has enacted a joint resolu- 
tion approving such certification. 

SEC 4. TERMINATION FOR CERTAIN NEW AGREE- 
MENTS. 

The restrictions on testing contained in 
section 3 shall cease to apply if supplanted 
by an agreement, accord, or treaty between 
the United States and the Soviet Union 
which makes reductions in the number or 
yield of underground nuclear explosions 
permitted under treaties between the 
United States and the Soviet Union signed 
before January 1, 1987. 

SEC 5. DEFINITIONS. 

For purposes of this Act: 

(1) The term "designated test area" means 
an area not exceeding two hundred and 
fifty-nine square kilometers within the 
Soviet Union or the United States, as the 
case may be, which — 

(A) is located within the boundaries of a 
single existing nuclear weapons testing site 
in each country; 

(B) is composed of competent or water- 
saturated strong-coupling rock that does not 
contain closely spaced underground tunnels 
or a cavity with a radius greater than 
twenty meters; and 

(C) has been the site, before the effective 
date of the testing restrictions specified in 
this Act, of five nuclear calibration explo- 
sions of independently determined yield, 
conducted for the primary purpose of im- 
proving the accuracy of seismic monitoring 
techniques, without the use of diagnostic 
equipment, except equipment for a Continu- 
ous Reflectometry for Radius versus Time 
Experiment (CORRTEX), or any other 
method of ascertaining the yield of explo- 
sions which is mutually agreeable to the 
United States and the Soviet Union. 

(2) The term "joint seismic yield estimate" 
means a composite estimate at a high confi- 
dence level which — 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23103 



(A) is based on the concurrent employ- 
ment of several independent methods for 
calculating yields of explosions at designat- 
ed test sites using different seismic waves 
from an underground nuclear explosion; 
and 

(B) has been the subject of a technical 
report, provided in both classified and un- 
classified form to the Committees on Armed 
Services and on Foreign Affairs of the 
House of Representatives, the Permanent 
Select Committee on Intelligence of the 
House of Representatives, the Committee 
on Armed Services and on Foreign Relations 
of the Senate, and the Select Committee on 
Intelligence of the Senate, conducted by a 
scientific review panel convened under the 
auspices of the National Academy of Sci- 
ences and comprised of ten highly qualified 
seismologists designated as follows: 

(i) one by the Chairman of the Select 
Committee on Intelligence of the Senate; 

(ii) one by the Chairman of the Perma- 
nent Select Committee on Intelligence of 
the House of Representatives; 

(iii) one by the head of the Air Force 
Technical Applications Center; 

(iv) one by the Director of the Defense In- 
telligence Agency; 

(v) one by the Director of Central Intelli- 
gence; 

(vi) one by the head of the Defense Ad- 
vanced Research Projects Agency; 

(vii) one jointly by the directors of the na- 
tional weapons laboratories; 

(viii) one by the Director of the Geological 
Survey; 

(ix) one by the Director of the Office of 
Technology Assessment; and 

(x) one by the President of the National 
Academy of Sciences. 

(3) The term "reciprocal, in-country moni- 
toring arrangements" means arrangements 
between the United States and the Soviet 
Union to supplement national technical 
means of verification through— 

(A) the conduct by either country of up to 
six on-site inspections on the national terri- 
tory of the other, each of which shall be al- 
lowed to commence within ten days after 
the day on which either nation has present- 
ed to the other a formal request demon- 
strating the need for additional information 
to identify a specific ambiguous event or ac- 
tivity related to apparent violations of the 
restrictions specified in section 3(a); 

(B) designation by each country, not later 
than thirty days after the date of enact- 
ment of this Act, of a candidate designated 
test area, followed by an independent in- 
spection by the monitoring country, begin- 
ning not later than sixty days after the date 
of enactment of this Act and ending not 
later than sixty days thereafter, of: 

(i) the geologic and material properties 
within each candidate designated test area, 
including the presence and disposition of 
any underground tunnels and cavities; and 

(ii) complete drill cores and logs from 
three holes of appropriate depth within 
each candidate designated test area, the 
drilling of which has been observed and the 
locations of which have been selected by the 
side monitoring that area; 

(C) the provision of at least thirty days 
advance notice of — 

(i) the scheduled date, time, and coordi- 
nates for each nuclear test explosion of one 
kiloton or less; 

(ii) the scheduled date, time, and coordi- 
nates for not more than two explosions, 
each with a planned yield in excess of one 
kiloton, but not exceeding fifteen kilotons; 
and 



(iii) the coordinates, dates, times, and 
yields of industrial explosions larger than 
twenty tons of high explosive to be conduct- 
ed within the nuclear test-capable areas de- 
fined in clause (D); 

(D) the emplacement by each country, on 
the national territory of the other, of twelve 
high performance seismic stations (four 
bore-hole instrument packages around the 
periphery of each designated test area and 
eight additional seismic stations in regions 
where peaceful nuclear explosions may have 
created suitable decoupling cavities in thick 
salt deposits) such that the combined inter- 
nal and external seismic monitoring net- 
work of each nation will be capable of de- 
tecting and identifying all nuclear explo- 
sions with yields exceeding one kiloton — 

(i) at known nuclear weapons tests sites of 
the other country; and 

(ii) at sites in the other country having a 
current capability to accommodate a decou- 
pled nuclear explosion with a yield exceed- 
ing one kiloton; and 

(E) the conduct of a joint verification 
study conducted by experts on nuclear test 
verification techniques from both the 
United States and the Soviet Union for the 
purpose of determining the number and lo- 
cations in both countries of additional in- 
country seismic monitoring stations needed 
to monitor long-term compliance with the 
terms of a low-yield threshold test ban 
treaty. 

SEC. 6. SPECIAL PROCEDURES FOR CONSIDERING 
LEGISLATION APPROVING PRESIDEN- 
TIAL CERTIFICATION. 

(a) In General.— For the purpose of expe- 
diting the consideration of a joint resolution 
referred to in section 3(b)(2)(B), the proce- 
dures specified in subsection (b) shall apply. 

(b) Special Procedures.— (1) For the pur- 
poses of section 3(b)(2)(B), "joint resolu- 
tion" means only a joint resolution intro- 
duced after the date on which a certifica- 
tion by the President under such subsection 
is received by Congress the matter after the 
resolving clause of which is as follows: 
"That Congress approves the certification 
made by the President, dated , with 
respect to the refusal of the Soviet Union to 
implement reciprocal, in-country monitor- 
ing arrangements in connection with under- 
ground nuclear testing.", the blank space 
therein being filled with the appropriate 
date. 

(2) A resolution described in paragraph (1) 
introduced in the House of Representatives 
shall be referred to the Committee on 
Armed Services of the House of Representa- 
tives. A resolution described in paragraph 
(1) introduced in the Senate shall be re- 
ferred to the Committee on Armed Services 
of the Senate. Such a resolution may not be 
reported before the 8th day after its intro- 
duction. 

(3) If the committee to which is referred a 
resolution described in paragraph (1) has 
not reported such resolution (or an identical 
resolution) at the end of fifteen calendar 
days after its introduction, such committee 
shall be deemed to be discharged from fur- 
ther consideration of such resolution and 
such resolution shall be placed on the ap- 
propriate calendar of the House involved. 

(4)(A) When the committee to which a 
resolution is referred has reported, or has 
been deemed to be discharged (under para- 
graph (3)) from further consideration of, a 
resolution described in paragraph ( 1 ), it is at 
any time thereafter in order (even though a 
previous motion to the same effect has been 
disagreed to) for any Member of the respec- 
tive House to move to proceed to the consid- 



eration of the resolution, and all points of 
order against the resolution (and against 
consideration of the resolution) are waived. 
The motion is highly privileged in the 
House of Representatives and is privileged 
in the Senate and is not debatable. The 
motion is not subject to amendment, or to a 
motion to postpone, or to a motion to pro- 
ceed to the consideration of other business. 
A motion to reconsider the vote by which 
the motion is agreed to or disagreed to shall 
not be in order. If a motion to proceed to 
the consideration of the resolution is agreed 
to, the resolution shall remain the unfin- 
ished business of the respective House until 
disposed of. 

(B) Debate on the resolution, and on all 
debatable motions and appeals in connec- 
tion therewith, shall be limited to not more 
than ten hours, which shall be divided 
equally between those favoring and those 
opposing the resolution. A motion further 
to limit debate is in order and not debatable. 
An amendment to, or a motion to postpone, 
or a motion to proceed to the consideration 
of other business, or a motion to recommit 
the resolution is not in order. A motion to 
reconsider the vote by which the resolution 
is agreed to or disagreed to is not in order. 

(C) Immediately following the conclusion 
of the debate on a resolution described in 
paragraph (1), and a single quorum call at 
the conclusion of the debate if requested in 
accordance with the rules of the appropri- 
ate House, the vote on final passage of the 
resolution shall occur. 

(D) Appeals from the decisions of the 
Chair relating to the application of the 
rules of the Senate or the House of Repre- 
sentatives, as the case may be, to the proce- 
dure relating to a resolution described in 
paragraph (1) shall be decided without 
debate. 

(5) If, before the passage by one House of 
a resolution of that House described in para- 
graph (1), that House receives from the 
other House a resolution described in para- 
graph (1), then the following procedures 
shall apply: 

(A) The resolution of the other House 
shall not be referred to a committee. 

(B) With respect to a resolution described 
in paragraph (1) of the House receiving the 
resolution— 

(i) the procedure in that House shall be 
the same as if no resolution had been re- 
ceived from the other House; but 

(ii) the vote on final passage shall be on 
the resolution of the other House. 

(6) This subsection is enacted by Con- 
gress— 

(A) as an exercise of the rulemaking 
power of the Senate and House of Repre- 
sentatives, respectively, and as such it is 
deemed a part of the rules of each House, 
respectively, but applicable only with re- 
spect to the procedure to be followed in that 
House in the case of a resolution described 
in paragraph (1), and it supersedes other 
rules only to the extent that it is inconsist- 
ent with such rules; and 

(B) with full recognition of the constitu- 
tional right of either House to change the 
rules (so far as relating to the procedure of 
that House) at any time, in the same 
manner and to the same extent as in the 
case of any other rule of that House. 

The Hatfield-Kennedy Nuclear Testing 
Bill 

cosponsors— (s. 1106) 
Senators Baucus, Burdick, Conrad, Cran- 
ston, Danforth, Daschle, DeConcini, Fowler, 



23104 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



Harkin, Hatfield, Kennedy, Kerry, Lauten- 
berg, Leahy, Levin, Matsunaga, Melcher, 
Metzenbaum, Mikulski, Mitchell, Pell, Prox- 
mire, Riegle, Sanford, Sarbanes, Simon, 
Specter, Stafford, Wirth, Weicker, Bumpers, 
Adams, and Inouye. 

Underground Nuclear Explosions Control 
Act Summary of Provisions 

Two-year verifiable moratorium on nucle- 
ar explosions above one kiloton yield. 

Beginning 180 days after enactment, a re- 
duction in the yield threshold for under- 
ground nuclear tests to one kiloton, provid- 
ed that the USSR has agreed to reciprocal 
installation of temporary moratorium moni- 
toring networks. 

Short term monitoring network composed 
of four bore-hole seismic stations around 
each nation's designated testing area, and 
eight other stations deployed in regions 
where peaceful nuclear explosions have cre- 
ated potential seismic decoupling cavities in 
thick salt deposits. 

Permitted testing confined to one desig- 
nated test area of 100 square miles (259 
square kilometers). 

Independent determination by each side 
of the yields— using CORRTEX or another 
mutually acceptable method of equivalent 
accuracy— of at least five underground nu- 
clear explosions conducted at each side's 
designated testing area within six months of 
enactment of the moratorium for the pur- 
pose of improving the accuracy of seismic 
yield estimation techniques. 

Six on-site inspections over a two year 
period. 

Exception for two tests with yields up to 
fifteen kilotons for the primary purpose of 
maintaining confidence in the reliability of 
the existing nuclear stockpile. 

Continued testing at or below one kiloton 
to assess nuclear weapons effects on the sur- 
vivability of military systems, maintain 
weapon safety and security, and maintain 
laboratory competence. 

Termination of the testing restrictions if 
the President certifies that the USSR: 

(1) has conducted an underground nuclear 
explosion with a yield greater than one kilo- 
ton, except for two designated explosions 
with yields not exceeding 15 kilotons; 

(2) has conducted a test outside a "desig- 
nated test area" as defined in the act; 

(3) has refused to implement "reciprocal 
in-country monitoring arrangements," as de- 
fined in the act, including prior notification 
of all tests and six on-site inspections, and 
Congress approves the President's certifica- 
tion. 

Automatic termination of the testing re- 
strictions if the United States and the 
Soviet Union conclude a new agreement 
making significant reductions in the yield or 
number of underground nuclear explosions. 

Mandatory review by a special National 
Academy of Sciences panel of the technical 
basis for any seismic yield estimate used to 
support certification to Congress of Soviet 
violation of the testing restricitons. 

Formation of a joint Soviet-American veri- 
fication research project to identify the 
number and locations of additional seismic 
monitoring stations in both countries 
needed to verify long-term compliance with 
a low threshold test ban treaty. 

Dear Senator: We, the undersigned orga- 
nizations, strongly urge you to support the 
Hartfield-Kennedy Nuclear Explosions Con- 
trol Act calling for a mutual and verifiable 
two-year limitation on underground nuclear 
explosions above one kiloton. 



A top priority of our organizations' com- 
bined membership is a verifiable halt to all 
but the smallest US and Soviet nuclear tests 
as a first step toward a comprehensive test 
ban. With the exception of this administra- 
tion, every President since Dwight Eisen- 
hower has sought a CTB. In May, the House 
of Representatives passed, by a large 
margin, the Schroeder-Gephardt amend- 
ment that prohibits spending for nuclear 
warhead tests with a yield in excess of one 
kiloton, provided the Soviets refrain from 
testing. Clearly, broad public and bipartisan 
Congressional support exists for such meas- 
ures. 

Please vote for the Hatfield-Kennedy 
amendment when it comes to the Senate 
floor. The National Coalition for a CTB 
urges you to give this effort your full sup- 
port and immediate attention. 

American Association of University 
Women. 

American Baptist Churches, USA. 

American Federation of State, County and 
Municipal Employees. 

American Friends Service Committee. 

American Medical Student Association. 

American Public Health Association. 

Americans for Democratic Action. 

Catholic Peace Fellowship. 

Center for Concern, Washington Office. 

Citzens Against Nuclear War. 

Church of the Brethren. 

Church Women United. 

Coalition for a New Foreign Policy. 

Committee for National Security. 

Council for a Livable World. 

Council on Economic Priorities. 

Environmental Action. 

Environmental Policy Institute. 

Federation of American Scientists. 

Friends Committee on National Legisla- 
tion. 

Friends of the Earth. 

Health and Energy Institute. 

International Association of Machinists 
and Aerospace Workers. 

Jesuit Social Ministries, National Office. 

Jewish Peace Fellowship. 

Lawyers Alliance for Nuclear Arms Con- 
trol. 

Maryknoll Fathers and Brothers, Office 
of Justice and Peace. 

National Education Association. 

National Organization of Women. 

National Union of Hospital and Health 
Care Employees. 

National Wildlife Federation. 

National Womens' Health Network. 

Natural Resources Defense Council. 

New Jewish Agenda. 

Nuclear Information Resource Service. 

Nuclear Weapons Freeze Campaign. 

Pax Christi, USA. 

Physicians for Social Responsibility. 

Presbyterian Church (USA), Washington 
Office. 

Professionals Coalition for Nuclear Arms 
Control. 

Project Vote. 

Psychologists for Social Responsibility. 

SANE. 

Sierra Club. 

The Mission Education Center Staff, Sis- 
ters of Notre Dame de Namur. 

Union of American Hebrew Congrega- 
tions. 

Unitarian Universalist Association of 
Churches in North America. 

United Campuses to Prevent Nuclear War. 

United Church of Christ, Office for 
Church in Society. 

United Electric, Radio, and Machine 
Workers of America. 



United Food and Commercial Workers 
International Union. 

United States Student Association. 

Washington Peace Center. 

Women Strike for Peace. 

Womens' Action for Nuclear Disarma- 
ment. 

Womens' International League for Peace 
and Freedom. 

World Federalist Association. 

World Peacemakers. 

YWCA of the USA, National Board. 

U.S. Conference of Mayors— Resolution 

on the Suspension of Nuclear Testing 

(Approved at its annual meeting in 

Nashville, TN, June 17, 1987) 

Whereas, a nuclear war would result in 
death, injury and disease on a scale unprece- 
dented in human history; 

Whereas, spending for the arms race de- 
mands enormous amounts of money while 
programs providing essential assistance to 
our cities are being cut back; 

Whereas, a ban on nuclear testing would 
promote the security of the United States 
by constraining new developments in the 
U.S. -Soviet arms competition and by 
strengthening efforts to prevent the spread 
of nuclear weapons to non-nuclear coun- 
tries; 

Whereas, radiation vented from nuclear 
tests creates a potential health hazard for 
the people of our country; 

Whereas, a ban on nuclear testing would 
be a concrete and easily achievable first step 
towards reversing the arms race; 

Whereas, the issue of nuclear testing 
deeply affects the domestic lives of our citi- 
zens and must legitimately be placed high 
on our agenda; 

Whereas, a ban on nuclear testing can be 
verified with high confidence by a world- 
wide network of seismic monitors, satellites, 
in-country reciprocal monitoring arrange- 
ments, and other verification technology op- 
erated by the United States and other na- 
tions; 

Now, therefore, be it resolved that the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors calls upon the 
President to immediately announce a U.S. 
suspension of nuclear testing, contingent on 
a similar Soviet suspension of nuclear test- 
ing, and to resume negotiations with the So- 
viets leading to a Comprehensive Test Ban 
as a first step towards reversing the arms 
race and reducing the risk of nuclear war. 

Questions and Answers Concerning the 
Underground Nuclear Explosion Con- 
trol Act of 1987 (UNECA) 
Question: How would UNECA restrict the 
U.S. and Soviet nuclear test programs? 

Answer: UNECA would establish a mutual 
two-year verifiable moratorium on all but 
two underground nuclear explosions which 
release more energy than one kiloton (one 
thousand tons) of chemical high explosive 
(TNT). These two exceptions to the one kil- 
oton threshold would be limited to 15 kilo- 
tons. 

Question: How would these restrictions be 
verified? 

Answer: UNECA requires that any permit- 
ted tests be conducted at a single "designat- 
ed test area" of 100 sq. miles in each coun- 
try, and the bill carefully defines a set of 
"reciprocal in-country monitoring arrange- 
ments" to guarantee adequate verification 
of tests conducted at this site. The defini- 
tion of these arrangements includes a quota 
of six on-site inspections over a two-year 
period and independent determination of 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23105 



the yields of five nuclear calibration explo- 
sions at each designated test area prior to 
the effective date of the test restrictions, for 
the purpose of ensuring the accuracy of 
seismic monitoring techniques. 

Question: Could the President terminate 
the moratorium in the event the USSR 
failed to exercise comparable restraint or 
blocked the implementation of adequate 
verification arrangements? 

Answer: Yes. For example, the President 
could terminate the moratorium if he certi- 
fied that the USSR had conducted an explo- 
sion above one kiloton that had not been 
designated 30 days in advance as one of two 
peimitted tests above the threshold. 

He could also terminate the moratorium if 
he certifies that the USSR has conducted a 
test outside a "designated test area," or has 
failed to implement "reciprocal in-country 
monitoring arrangements," as defined in the 
act. The latter certification, which is neces- 
sarily more subjective and political in char- 
acter, would require Congressional concur- 
rence under expedited procedures in order 
to take effect. 

In light of the extended controversy over 
U.S. official allegations of Soviet violations 
of the current Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 
UNECA requires that the technical basis for 
any certification of Soviet violation based 
on a seismic yield estimate be reviewed by a 
government-wide panel of experts, convened 
under the auspices of the National Academy 
of Sciences. 

Question: Will the monitoring arrange- 
ments required by UNECA be effective in 
ensuring Soviet compliance? 

Answer: Yes. The provision limiting per- 
mitted test explosions to one small area 
composed of "strong-coupling" (hard or 
water-saturated) rock means that detection- 
identification of any off-site nuclear explo- 
sion, regardless of yield, would constitute 
evidence of a violation. The current U.S. 
and allied external network can detect and 
identify nuclear explosions in the Soviet 
Union down to less than 1 kiloton in hard 
rock. The in-country network required by 
this legislation would extend this detection- 
identification capability down to a 1 kiloton 
explosion in a "decoupling" cavity designed 
to muffle the seismic signals from the ex- 
plosion—the seismic equivalent of a 5 ton 
explosion in hard rock. 

The in-country stations would be placed in 
regions of thick salt deposits which are 
thought to have a current capacity to ac- 
commodate such decoupled explosions, and 
around each nation's primary test site. 

This means that for either side to cheat 
on the proposed moratorium, it would have 
to find an area which it believed was not 
adequately covered by seismic sensors, and 
then excavate and instrument a new cavity 
without detection by surveillance satellite. 
This scenario would require more than the 
two year duration of this bill to carry out. 
Moreover, given a practical engineering 
limit of 10 kilotons on the size of the explo- 
sion for which a decoupling cavity might be 
constructed, and the ability of both sides to 
legally conduct two tests up to 15 kilotons, 
the motivation for launching such an eva- 
sion attempt seems difficult to discern. 

Question: Would the seismic monitoring 
network of 12 in-country stations required 
by UNECA be sufficient, in conjunction 
with the current U.S. global network out- 
side the USSR, to monitor a permanent 
very low threshold test ban. 

Answer: Probably not, but no one can be 
sure of the actual operating capabilities of 
such a network in the USSR until it is up 



and running. It might require expansion to 
roughly twice its size to monitor compliance 
with a long term treaty. UNECA requires 
the formation of a joint Soviet-American 
verification research project to identify the 
number and locations of additional seismic 
monitoring stations in both countries that 
might be needed to verify long-term compli- 
ance with a low threshold test ban treaty. 

April 22, 1987. 

Dear Senators Kennedy, Hatfield and 
DeConcini: It has come to our attention 
that you are considering the introduction of 
legislation establishing a reciprocal two-year 
restriction on the number of Soviet and 
American underground nuclear explosions 
above a verifiable low-yield threshold. We 
believe such a restriction is both desirable in 
its own right and a logical first step in the 
direction of an eventual Comprehensive 
Test Ban Treaty, should national leaders 
choose to pursue that option in the future. 

We believe that a deep mutual reduction 
in the number and yield of U.S. and Soviet 
nuclear tests conducted above a monitoring 
threshold of one kiloton would slow the 
pace of innovation in nuclear weaponry, 
lessen reciprocal threats to strategic stabili- 
ty, reduce mutually perceived political re- 
quirements for new strategic weapons, and 
diminish mutual fears of preemptive nucle- 
ar attack strategies. 

Some of us have long supported the goal 
of a comprehensive ban on nuclear test ex- 
plosions, and are in accord with the conclu- 
sions reached by Drs. Garwin, Bethe, and 
Mark in the attached letter that a CTB 
could be implemented today with a net ben- 
efit to our national security. All of us recog- 
nize, however, that longstanding strategic 
and technical disputes over the desirability 
of a CTB remain unresolved at the highest 
levels of government. These differences re- 
garding the wisdom of a comprehensive ban 
should not be allowed, however, to obscure 
the latent consensus in favor of further re- 
straints on the number and yield of under- 
ground nuclear tests. 

The present administration argues that 
keeping U.S. nuclear weapons "safe, secure, 
reliable, and effective ..." The level of 
testing [i.e. yield and frequency] required to 
satisfy each of these objectives is reviewed 
in the attached memorandum by Prof. 
Frank von Hippel of Princeton University. 

We endorse this memorandum's conclu- 
sion that weapon safety and security could 
be improved, and that efforts to harden U.S. 
military equipment against nuclear weapons 
effects would not be significantly impaired, 
even if the present 150-kiloton limit on the 
yield of underground nuclear explosions 
were reduced to one kiloton. 

Experience with nuclear weapons reliabil- 
ity problems since 1958 strongly supports 
the conclusion that confidence in the stock- 
pile can be maintained by continuing the 
current primary dependence on a program 
of careful disassembly, inspection, and re- 
furbishment, supplemented by an average 
of less than one nuclear test per year in the 
5-15 kiloton range. 

Regarding the requirement for nuclear ex- 
plosive tests above one kiloton to improve 
nuclear weapon "effectiveness" against, for 
example, hardened underground or mobile 
targets, we note that continuing such tests 
at current levels would also allow the Soviet 
Union to improve its own capabilities in 
these areas. We believe that the heightened 
deterrent effect sought by military planners 
on both sides from such developments 
would be outweighed by the destabilizing ef- 



fects of increased mutual fears of preemp- 
tive nuclear strikes. 

American political leaders have the re- 
sponsibility of reminding those who develop 
and operate nuclear weapons systems that 
their ultimate purpose in fielding a nuclear 
arsenal is not to ensure prompt destruction 
of Soviet military targets— the military defi- 
nition of "effectiveness"— but rather to help 
prevent the occurrence of nuclear war. 

We concur with the conclusion of the at- 
tached memorandum that, "from a techni- 
cal perspective, nuclear testing to improve 
the nominal "effectiveness" of U.S. nuclear 
weapons against Soviet military targets is 
not required to field a nuclear arsenal that 
is both a reliable and survivable deterrent 
force." 

With respect to the verification of a re- 
striction on tests above one kiloton, it is our 
view that a capability to confidently moni- 
tor Soviet compliance with a one kiloton 
threshold could be obtained by supplement- 
ing the current U.S. and allied seismic detec- 
tion network around the Soviet Union with 
an in-country network equipped with high 
performance seismometers. This network 
should have an initial capability to verify 
the yields of permitted tests at a single des- 
ignated test site, and to detect nuclear ex- 
plosions in areas presently containing large 
underground cavities suitable for muffling 
the seismic signal from an explosion. Of 
course, the U.S. would have to permit the 
Soviet government to set up a counterpart 
seismic monitoring network in the United 
States. 

Depending on the capabilities of the com- 
bined internal and external monitoring net- 
works, as determined by actual operating 
experience during an interim two-year re- 
striction, a joint Soviet-American seismic 
survey could develop the data needed to 
identify the number, type, and locations of 
any additional in-country stations that may 
be needed to increase confidence in the de- 
tection of long-term evasion programs under 
a permanent low-threshold test ban. 

We hope these observations may be of 
some use to you and your colleagues in clari- 
fying the real nature of the choices avail- 
able to the Congress as it considers restric- 
tions on underground nuclear test explo- 
sions. 

Sincerely, 

Richard L. Garwin (IBM Thomas J. 
Watson Research Center, and Cornell, Co- 
lumbia, and Harvard Universities). 

J. Carson Mark (retired. Director of Theo- 
retical Physics Division, Los Alamos Scien- 
tific Laboratory, 1947-1973). 

Hans A. Bethe (Laboratory for Nuclear 
Studies, Cornell University Director, Theo- 
retical Physics Division, Los Alamos Scien- 
tific Laboratory, 1943-46; Nobel prize for 
physics, 1967). 

Norris E. Bradbury (Director, Los Alamos 
Scientific Laboratory, 1945-1970). 

Glenn T. Seaborg (Lawrence Berkeley 
Laboratory, University of California Chair- 
man, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1961- 
71; Nobel prize for Chemistry, 1951). 

Lynn R. Sykes (Lamont-Doherty Geologi- 
cal Observatory, Columbia University 
Member, Threshold Test Ban Delegation, 
1974). 

Theodore B. Taylor (NOVA Corporation, 
Damascus, MD; formerly Deputy Director 
for Science, Defense Atomic Support 
Agency, 1964-67). 

Charles B. Archambeau (University of 
Colorado, Boulder; Chairman, Seismic Mon- 
itoring Advisory Committee, Natural Re- 
sources Defense Council). 



23106 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



Jack F. Evernden (U.S. Geological Survey, 
Menlo Park, CA 94025). 

Memorandum 
To: United States Senators and Staff. 
Prom: Prank N. von Hippel. 1 
Subject: Low-threshold nuclear test restric- 
tions. 
The present Administration argues that 
keeping U.S. nuclear weapons "safe, secure, 
reliable, and effective • * * demands some 
level of underground nuclear testing • * * ." 
The appropriate "level" of testing [i.e. yield 
and frequency] required to satisfy each of 
these objectives is reviewed below. 

EFFECTIVENESS 

The principal rationale for nuclear weap- 
ons tests, and therefore the principal objec- 
tion to a test ban, is the alleged need to de- 
velop more militarily "effective" nuclear 
weapons. Prom a technical perspective, how- 
ever, nuclear tests designed to improve the 
nominal "effectiveness" of U.S. nuclear 
weapons against the Soviet military target 
base are not required to field a nuclear arse- 
nal that is both a reliable and survivable de- 
terrent force. 

Assessments of nuclear weapon "effective- 
ness" depend on subjective perceptions of 
the deterrent benefits to be gained from im- 
proved U.S. and Soviet nuclear warfighting 
capabilities relative to their crisis-destabiliz- 
ing effects and costs. The background reali- 
ty for such assessments is that despite the 
ability of U.S. and Soviet nuclear arsenals to 
inflict great damage on each other, neither 
side can strike first without fear of devastat- 
ing retaliation. The development of im- 
proved second-generation or new third-gen- 
eration nuclear weapons will not change 
this situation. 

The remainder of the objections which 
have been raised against a comprehensive 
ban on nuclear test explosions do not apply 
to a low-threshold/quota test ban. 

RELIABILITY 

While the need for any nuclear explosive 
tests to maintain stockpile reliability re- 
mains a matter of intense dispute within 
the expert community, almost everyone 
agrees that the number and yields of tests 
needed for this purpose are small. According 
to a recent joint DOE/DOD testimony on 
April 29, 1986, "since 1970, eight tests [an 
average of one every two years] have been 
conducted to correct defects in stockpiled 
weapons." If a comparable number of tests 
were carried out to determine the serious- 
ness of problems detected during routine 
disassembly and inspection, there would 
have been a total of about one test per year 
during this period whose primary purpose 
was related to concerns about reliability. 

According to another Department of 
Energy statement, since 1958, 14 out of 41 
weapons designs in the U.S. nuclear stock- 
pile required post-development nuclear tests 
to resolve problems. If one assumes that 
each of these cases resulted in an average of 
two nuclear explosive tests above 1 kiloton 
to determine the extent of the problem and 
certify the required "fix," the resulting av- 
erage requirement for tests of this kind over 
the past three decades would again be about 



1 Prank N. von Hippel, a physicist, is Professor of 
Public and International Affairs, Princeton Univer- 
sity. Address: Center for Energy and Environmen- 
tal Studies, Engineering Quadrangle, Princeton, 
N.J. 08544. (609) 452-4695. This memorandum is 
based on information and analyses available in the 
unclassified literature, and on discussions with ex- 
perts in the different areas surveyed. 



one per year. ("Certification" tests of pilot 
production weapons prior to quantity pro- 
duction are not properly classified as "reli- 
ability tests" of stockpiled weapons, as some 
government officials have suggested, but 
rather as the final step in the development 
cycle of a new weapon.) 

Virtually all the reliability problems have 
occurred in the primary stages of two-stage 
thermonuclear devices. These "primaries" 
typically have yields between about five and 
fifteen kilotons. 

A quota of about one test per year in the 
five-to-fifteen kiloton range, would there- 
fore allow continuation at their previous 
rate of tests designed to maintain confi- 
dence in the reliability of the existing stock- 
pile. Of course, one would not expect new 
problems to crop up indefinitely at this rate 
in a fixed set of weapons. 

It is therefore quite possible that, over a 
longer period, this quota for reliability tests 
above the verification threshold could be 
phased out. Even today, in the view of some 
experts (including R.L. Garwin, H. Bethe, 
and C. Mark) a quota averaging one nuclear 
explosive test per year represents an unnec- 
essary hedge against the appearance of 
novel flaws in thoroughly-tested stockpile 
weapons. 

HARDENING AGAINST NUCLEAR WEAPONS 
EFFECTS 

Another frequently cited argument 
against a CTB is the need for additional 
data regarding the effects of nuclear explo- 
sions on nuclear weapons systems and other 
types of military equipment. Our ability to 
gain further knowledge in this area is al- 
ready significantly constrained, however, by 
the Limited Test Ban Treaty (LTBT) of 
1963, which bans explosions which might be 
conducted, for example, in near space to 
gauge the effects of electromagnetic pulse, 
or on the earth's surface to measure crater- 
ing effects. 

Testing at or below one kiloton can pro- 
vide most of the knowledge of nuclear ef- 
fects obtainable from underground tests. 
For example, approximately the same radi- 
ation intensities can be achieved 40 meters 
away from a 1-kt explosion as 500 meters 
from a 150-kt explosion. 

For this reason most weapons-effects tests 
are already carried out with low-yield explo- 
sions. The permitted annual "stockpile con- 
fidence" tests with a yield in the five-to-fif- 
teen kiloton range could also be used to 
assess nuclear effects. 

SAFETY 

With regard to safety, U.S. nuclear weap- 
ons are already constructed in such a fash- 
ion that they are "one-point safe"— meaning 
that they will not explode with a significant 
nuclear yield, even if a segment of the 
chemical explosive in the fission trigger is 
detonated by accident. Current safety im- 
provements are thus focused on the less se- 
rious problem of reducing dispersal of Pluto- 
nium if the chemical high explosive deto- 
nates or burns. 

This potential problem is being remedied 
by the use in new nuclear weapons of "in- 
sensitive high explosive" (IHE) which is 
much less prone to accidental detonation. 
The introduction of IHE into the U.S. arse- 
nal is motivated primarily by the need to 
reduce the risks associated with the move- 
ments of air-delivered and land-mobile 
weapons. In these areas, the introduction of 
IHE is now in an advanced stage. 

Most warheads and bombs produced since 
1980, such as the B61 and B83 bombs, W85 
Pershing II warhead, W87 MX warhead, 



and W80 and W84 cruise missile warheads, 
incorporate IHE. The W-87 could also be 
used as the warhead for the planned Midg- 
etman ICBM, obviating the need for further 
tests in connection with the deployment of 
this system. 

In some cases, new warheads have been 
developed without incorporating IHE even 
when there has been the opportunity to do 
so. The Navy, for example, has elected not 
to use IHE in the W-88 warhead for its new 
TRIDENT II ballistic missile because IHE 
packs less explosive power per unit volume 
than normal high explosives, making war- 
heads containing IHE heavier than war- 
heads of comparable yield designed with 
conventional high explosive. 

Use of IHE in SLBM warheads would 
therefore reduce either the range or the 
number of warheads that could be delivered 
by the missile. If the Navy were willing to 
pay this penalty in return for improved 
safety, the Trident II could be fitted with 
the same W-87 warhead as the MX, or a 
modified version of the W-88 incorporating 
IHE. Clearly, nuclear testing limitations 
should not be faulted for depriving military 
planners of potential safety improvements 
which they have elected not to pursue even 
in the absence of a test ban regime. 

In the case of artillery shells, the limita- 
tions on IHE use arise from technical rather 
than military considerations: since a larger 
volume of IHE is required to release a given 
amount of energy, the small diameter of ar- 
tillery shells makes them difficult to con- 
vert to IHE. 

Finally, when one considers that replace- 
ment warheads are not being produced for 
some tactical weapons (such as Atomic 
Demolition Munitions and nuclear air de- 
fense missiles) that are being phased out in 
favor of precision guided weapons, the 
future requirement for tests to certify new 
designs incorporating IHE is far less impos- 
ing than might be suggested by the Depart- 
ment of Energy's statement that only one- 
third of currently stockpiled weapons incor- 
porate IHE. 

Virtually all other safety improvements 
are focused on the mechanical and electrical 
designs of the triggering systems, and can 
be adequately tested without producing a 
significant nuclear yield, using flash X-ray 
machines and imbedded sensors to monitor 
the progress of the implosion shock wave. 
The production of neutrons from test weap- 
ons containing reduced amounts of fissile 
material in so-called "zero-yield" tests of the 
fission trigger also provides a sensitive 
measure of the degree of compression that 
has been achieved by the chemical implo- 
sion. All such tests could still be carried out 
under a threshold restricting the yields of 
underground tests to below one kiloton. 

SECURITY 

With regard to the postulated need for ex- 
plosions at full yield to test further innova- 
tions designed to secure U.S. nuclear weap- 
ons from unauthorized use, it should be 
noted that the permissive action links 
(PALs) which perform this task have al- 
ready gone through several generations of 
improvements. 

Moreover, not all improvements need in- 
trude into the "physics package" of the pri- 
mary, prompting redesign and a need for ad- 
ditional nuclear explosive tests. 

The primary issue of nuclear security 
today is not further technical refinement, 
but rather the fact that many weapons in 
the U.S. stockpile still lack PALs of any 
type. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23107 



In summary, therefore, a test ban with a 
threshold of about one kiloton would satisfy 
the concerns that have been raised regard- 
ing the effects of a comprehensive test ban 
(CTB) on nuclear weapons safety and secu- 
rity and on our ability to collect information 
about nuclear weapons effects. The addition 
of a quota averaging about one test per year 
with a yield between five and fifteen kilo- 
tons would permit continuation of stockpile 
confidence tests at their previous rate. 

Such a regime would severely limit the de- 
velopment of new types of nuclear weapons 
with yields greater than three to five kilo- 
tons. It would also limit new nuclear weapon 
delivery systems to those which could be 
equipped with already existing or conserv- 
atively modified warheads. 

VERIFICATION OF A TWO-YEAR LOW-THRESHOLD 
TESTING MORATORIUM 

In-country monitoring is needed primarily 
to guard against the possibility that the 
seismic signal of a low-yield underground 
nuclear explosion could be "decoupled" 
(muffled) in large artificial cavities or in 
soft geologic media, such as dry, loose allu- 
vial deposits. The possibility of complete or 
partial decoupling complicates the task of 
establishing confidence in our ability to 
detect and identify nuclear explosions inside 
the Soviet Union with yields of about one 
kiloton, and to verify that yields of permit- 
ted tests do not exceed the specified thresh- 
olds. 

The task of monitoring the yields of ex- 
plosions for compliance with a one-kiloton 
threshold can be eased considerably by lim- 
iting permitted tests to one small test area 
composed of strong-coupling rock. This 
would simplify yield estimation of permitted 
tests and make detection-identification of 
any off-site nuclear explosion— regardless of 
yield— sufficient evidence of violation. 

Decoupled explosions at the designated 
testing areas could be precluded by prior 
knowledge of test site geology and overhead 
surveillance. Residual ambiguities could be 
resolved through on-site inspections. 

Under these circumstances, a regional 
seismic monitoring system comprised of 
four high-performance seismic stations 
around the one permitted test site in each 
nation could provide yield estimates with a 
factor of uncertainty of two or less— espe- 
cially if the site had been previously "cali- 
brated" with nuclear explosions of known 
yield. A factor of two uncertainty surround- 
ing the seismic yield measurement in this 
case means that an explosion with a seismic 
signal corresponding to one kiloton would 
have only a 2.5 percent chance of exceeding 
2 kilotons, a marginal level of risk which 
most observers would consider acceptable. 

Concerns that the other side might con- 
ceal nuclear explosions in the few-kiloton 
range by decoupling could be allayed during 
a 2-year moratorium by adding to the re- 
gional seismic network around the test site 
additional regional networks in regions 
where mining or peaceful nuclear explo- 
sions may have already created suitable de- 
coupling cavities in thick salt deposits. 

Two such areas have been pointed out in 
the Soviet Union— one in the southwestern 
portion of the country north of the Caspian 
Sea, and one in central Siberia north of 
Lake Baikal. 

In the longer term, if it were decided to 
convert the two-year moratorium into a per- 
manent low-threshold test ban, concerns 
might emerge about possible clandestine 
creation of new large underground caverns 
in other areas. 



Under these circumstances, the regional 
seismic networks installed to monitor the 
moratorium could serve as the skeleton for 
a more extensive network with a country- 
wide detection/identification capability 
down to one kiloton fully-decoupled. 

During the term of the temporary morato- 
rium, a joint research project involving 
Soviet and American seismologists could be 
conducted to develop the data required to 
determine the number, type, and locations 
of the additional in-country seismic moni- 
toring stations required to verify compliance 
with the limitations of a permanent low- 
threshold test ban. 

February 3, 1987. 
Dr. Jeremy J. Stone, 

Director, Federation of American Scientists, 
Washington, DC. 
Dear Jeremy, in view of claims and coun- 
terclaims about the need for the United 
States to continue nuclear explosion testing, 
we want to summarize our views: 

1. Nuclear explosion testing is not needed 
to ensure the reliability of weapons in stock- 
pile which have been tested in their produc- 
tion version. It is not needed to detect deg- 
radation nor to remedy degradation. Non- 
nuclear testing is used for detection, and re- 
manufacture to original specifications is an 
adequate remedy. In testimony, April 8, 
1986, to the Senate Armed Services Commit- 
tee, the Director of the Livermore Laborato- 
ry agreed that, "given enough time and 
money, replication could be achieved." 

2. The U.S. could not have confidence in 
the performance of nuclear weapons put 
into stockpile without testing, and we recog- 
nize that a comprehensive ban on nuclear 
tests, or one which bans all detectable tests, 
would prevent the acquisition of warheads 
of new nuclear design. Nevertheless, the 
Midgetman missile could perfectly well use 
the warhead which has been designed and 
tested for the MX missile— the W-87. It 
might need shock-alleviation mounting for a 
mobile Midgetman subject to nuclear 
attack, but the demand for a new warhead 
is analogous to requiring that one redesign 
an astronaut before launching him or her 
into space. Careful attention to packaging 
will do. 

3. Although modern security devices for 
nuclear weapons could be so closely inte- 
grated with the nuclear components that 
these particular systems could not be added 
to existing weapons, comparable function 
can be achieved by a system designed to be 
suitable for retrofit to existing weapons 
without testing. Insensitive high explosive 
(IHE) cannot be incorporated into existing 
weapons which lack them without nuclear 
testing, but existing weapons are already 
proof against accidental nuclear explosion, 
and we believe the incorporation of IHE is 
not of highest importance. Concern on this 
point is primarily a matter of peacetime 
comfort than of wartime need. Since in the 
absence of any limit on numbers of tests 
only some 40 percent of U.S. weapons now 
have IHE, we must not be alone in this view. 

4. As for verifiability of a CTBT, some 25 
unmanned seismic detection systems on the 
territory of the Soviet Union are probably 
adequate to provide high confidence of de- 
tection, location, and identification of nucle- 
ar explosions of yield of one kiloton or 
more. But a treaty should provide for the 
installation of as many as are required in 
areas of poor seismic propagation, even 100 
stations if necessary. No seismic system can 
detect the stations if necessary. No seismic 
system can detect the smallest "nuclear ex- 



plosion." We could readily design a reliable 
nuclear explosion of yield one-thousandth 
of a kiloton, simply to demonstrate that it 
could not be detected by a particular seismic 
system. So a comprehensive test ban is in- 
herently not verifiable by seismic means. 
Yet some of the important benefits of a test 
ban would be lost if low-yield underground 
nuclear testing were permitted to the nucle- 
ar nations. The solution might be to have 
an initial ban on all nuclear explosions 
above 1 kiloton yield, a small initial quota of 
underground nuclear explosions below that 
yield, and a requirement to pre-announce all 
nuclear explosions of any yield above one 
ton, and to provide measurement of their 
yield by an approved method. The detection 
of violations would be aided by non-seismic 
and non-cooperative means, and potential 
violations of marginal detectability would 
not represent militarily important advances. 

5. The benefits to the U.S. of a test ban 
arise from denying the Soviet Union the 
progress in nuclear weaponry which can be 
made only by nuclear explosive testing. For 
instance, the Secretary of Energy expresses 
concern about possible Soviet progress on 
the nuclear-weapon-powered X-ray laser. 
That would cease under an appropriate test 
ban. Even if the U.S. were first to achieve a 
new military capability by nuclear testing, 
our security might be impaired, on balance, 
if the Soviets then acquired the same capa- 
bility; MIRV is generally regarded as a case 
in point. We believe that an important bene- 
fit of a test ban would derive from the much 
firmer base it would provide for our leader- 
ship of a world-wide effort to eliminate the 
spread of nuclear weapons the additional 
hands— an effort in which technical meas- 
ures reinforced by strict sanctions would 
serve U.S. security interests. 

6. It would be imprudent to believe that 
all parties would permanently abide by a 
test ban. So it would be necessary for the 
U.S. to maintain facilities, skills, and a pro- 
gram of research ,\nd design to ensure that 
we recognize the potential advances which 
might be achieved and are in a position to 
pursue them if the Soviet Union should re- 
nounce the test ban. Readiness to test need 
not be on a scale of days or weeks, since a 
year or more is required for a new weapon 
concept to affect military capability. Our 
skills should be honed by analysis, simula- 
tion, competitive design teams, and by the 
confrontation of simulation results with ex- 
plosive-driven assemblies without nuclear 
yield. 

7. We believe that it is in the U.S. interest 
to see an early end to the testing of nuclear 
weapons. 

Sincerely yours, 

Richard L. Garwin, 
(IBM Thomas J. 
Watson Research 
Center, and Cor- 
nell, Columbia, 
and Harvard Uni- 
versities). 
Hans A. Bethe, 

(Cornell University). 
Carson Mark, 
(retired, Former 

Head of Theoreti- 
cal Division, Los 
Alamos Scientific 
Laboratory, 1947- 
73). 



23108 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



April 22, 1987. 
Senator Edward M. Kennedy, 
Senator Mark O. Hatfield, 
Senator Dennis DeConcini, 
United States Senate, Washington, DC. 

Dear Senators Kennedy, Hatfield, and 
DeConcini: As scientists who have partici- 
pated for many years in U.S. government 
and privately sponsored research on under- 
ground nuclear test detection-identification, 
we feel that it is appropriate that we com- 
ment on your proposed bill entitled: "Under- 
ground Nuclear Explosion Control Act of 
1987". After careful review of the bill and 
all its provisions we wish to express our 
strong support for its passage. 

In regard to the technical considerations 
implicit in this act, we feel that it might be 
useful to offer an informed assessment of 
verification capabilities to be realized under 
its provisions. In particular, (1) whether 
yield estimates at the designated test sites, 
in the range near 1 kt and near 15 kt., can 
be made with acceptable accuracy and confi- 
dence and (2) whether detection— identifica- 
tion of conceivable clandestine tests could 
be expected with high probability under the 
provisions of the act. The following is a 
summary of the more lengthy evaluation 
contained in an earlier letter sent to you by 
Charles Archambeau. 

As the provisions of the bill affect the ac- 
curacy and confidence of yield estimates 
near 1 and 15 kt; we conclude the following: 

We believe that yield estimates at the des- 
ignated test sites can probably be made 
within a factor of two uncertainty (at the 95 
percent confidence level) in the range near 1 
kt. That is, approximately 95 percent of all 
seismically estimated yields of a 1 kt explo- 
sion will fall between 2 kt and .5 kt. At the 
higher range, near 15 kt, we would expect a 
lower uncertainty, with a value near 50 per- 
cent being most likely. In this case, it is 
about three times more likely that a seismi- 
cally observed value of 2 kt is due to an 
actual 2 kt test than it is to a 1 kt test. 
Therefore, assuming the provisions of the 
bill are enacted as stated, there would a low 
probability of successfully carrying out a 
very low number of tests, or even one, in the 
range above 2 kt without being discovered. 
This would suggest that it would be highly 
unlikely that any tests in violation of the 
agreement would ever be tried at designated 
test sites. 

The strategy for yield verification and de- 
tection of possible violations should be so 
strongly established as to insure near cer- 
tain compliance without the necessity of 
many on-site inspections to maintain confi- 
dence. In this regard, it would not be desira- 
ble to initiate inspections, or charges of vio- 
lations, for estimated yields that appeared 
only marginally larger than 1 kt, since it is 
also important to minimize the number of 
false alarms and the possible unresolvable 
controversies that could ensue. Therefore, it 
is necessary to use a "trigger value" for call- 
ing an inspection which is sufficiently above 
the threshold of 1 kt to avoid frequent false 
alarms, yet not so high as to encourage test- 
ing within the "grey-zone" between the 1 kt 
threshold limit and the value used to trigger 
the inspections. 

A 2 kt "trigger value" for a 1 kt threshold 
is certainly high enough to avoid many false 
alarms and provides a rather high degree of 
confidence that an estimated test yield at or 
above this value is probably due to a test 
above 1 kt. However, its use as a fixed "trig- 
ger value" could create a wider "grey-zone" 
than might be desirable. To avoid establish- 
ing the perception of such a "zone of immu- 



nity", one could simply adopt the strategy 
of calling for occasional on-site inspections 
for tests with estimated yields falling any- 
where within the "grey-zone" range. In ad- 
dition, since the basic uncertainty in yield 
estimates can be expected to decrease with 
time, in a manner unknown to the tester, 
the monitor could reduce the "trigger 
value" over time and thereby not only 
narrow the gap without increasing the false 
alarm rate, but also could do so in an unpre- 
dictably way producing high levels of tester 
uncertainy and effectively denying accessi- 
bility to this zone. 

We consider yield verification capability, 
for the two possible tests near 15 kt, to be 
quite sufficient to discourage any consid- 
ered attempt to test above the limit. Should 
a tester, nevertheless, conduct a test above 
this limit by any significant amount (for ex- 
ample, at about 20 kt.), then we would 
expect that such a test would be seismically 
identified as a probable violation. 

In order to preclude partial or full "cavity 
decoupling" possibilities, it is important 
that the bill retain the flexibility for rather 
complete inspection of the designated test 
site, along with the drilling and material 
sampling opportunities prescribed by the 
bill. Further, the possibility of rejection of a 
proposed site on grounds of probable decou- 
pling capability is essential. 

In regard to detection and identification 
of possible clandestine tests in areas off the 
designated test sites; the following observa- 
tions and conclusions are considered rele- 
vant: 

If any clandestine tests were conducted in 
a high to intermediate coupling medium, 
then the seismic magnitudes of such tests, 
anywhere within the two countries, would 
be sufficiently large to allow the events to 
be detected and identified by national tech- 
nical means; that is, by monitoring seismic 
stations outside the countries involved. 
Therefore, the only testing opportunities of 
concern to a monitor would be those that 
could be conducted in very low coupling 
media and/ or in large decoupling cavities. 

Since the moratorium is limited to a two 
year period, it would be very difficult and 
risky to rapidly construct test facilities and 
large underground decoupling cavities re- 
quired for clandestine testing at a totally 
new test site within a time frame that could 
impact the moratorium. Aside from the pos- 
sibility of discovery by satellite observation 
methods, even a successful development 
might very well be rendered useless when, 
at the end of the moratorium, additional 
seismic stations having capabilities to detect 
even small decoupled tests throughout the 
country could be installed. 

It is clear that the only reasonable off -site 
testing possibilities that exist under condi- 
tions of a short term moratorium are at 
sites where either very thick low coupling 
geologic formations exist or where large un- 
derground cavities already exist, or may 
exist. Such "test-capable" sites are very lim- 
ited in both the U.S. and U.S.S.R. For the 
U.S.S.R., such sites are appropriately moni- 
tored by external seismic stations supple- 
mented by the in-country seismic stations 
specified by the bill. 

The probability of successful discrimina- 
tion of earthquakes and fully or partially 
decoupled explosions above 1 kt. is high for 
the "test-capable" areas and it is doubtful 
that even one such small decoupled test, in 
the areas in question, could be conducted 
without being identified as a probable ex- 
plosion. Further, since none of the areas are 
regions of high natural seismicity, then the 



necessity of detailed analysis of large num- 
bers of events will not arise. Finally, since 
the bill specifies that chemical explosions 
above 20 tons in the "test-capable" areas be 
announced beforehand to the monitor, then 
false-alarms from numerous large scale 
mining explosions will not be a problem 
either. Consequently, we would expect that 
very few on-site inspections would be re- 
quired, and these probably only as confi- 
dence-building measures. 

Therefore, in conclusion, the combined 
verification capability represented by the 
available highly sensitive seismic and satel- 
lite monitoring plus on-site inspections of 
suspect events, as provided for in the bill, 
should be an extreme deterrent to a tester 
who realistically considers the risks of clan- 
destine testing and, conversely, should pro- 
vide the monitor with a high degree of con- 
fidence in his ability to identify any viola- 
tions, should they occur. 
Sincerely yours, 

Dr. Charles B. Archambeau, 
Professor of Geo- 
physics, University 
of Colorado, Boul- 
der, CO. 
Dr. Jack F. Evernden, 
Geophysicist, Daven- 
port, CA. 
Dr. Lynn Sykes, 
Professor of Seismol- 
ogy, Lamont-Do- 
herty Geological 
Observatory, Co- 
lumbia University. 



NEW SOVIET SALT SUBLIMITS 
VIOLATIONS 

Mr. HELMS. Mr. President, the 
claim has been made by various Sena- 
tors that the last shreds of the unrati- 
fied SALT II Treaty— the so-called 
sublimits— can somehow form the 
basis of strategic arms restraint. An er- 
roneous assertion has in fact been 
made to the effect that the Soviets 
have not yet violated the three numer- 
ical sublimits of SALT II. Therefore, 
these Senators contend, the United 
States should adhere to these subli- 
mits. They want to transform these 
sublimit restraints into a kind of stra- 
tegic arms treaty all by itself. 

I do not doubt the sincerity of the 
able Senators— but the facts prove 
them to be sincerely wrong. 

Now, Mr. President, they want to go 
beyond merely advocating these subli- 
mits. They make the preposterous 
claim that the Soviets are observing 
these restraints, and that the United 
States should therefore be required to 
observe these restraints. Their spe- 
cious reasoning is that if both super- 
powers are mutually, and unilaterally, 
observing these restraints, then we 
will have a de facto arms control 
treaty. The problem with the Sena- 
tors' position is that they are dead 
wrong when they suggest that the So- 
viets are "observing these restraints." 

Moreover, there is a fundamental 
policy question here: Are these re- 
straints in the national interest? 






August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23109 



So, Mr. President, the vital question 
is: Since the Soviets are not in compli- 
ance, how can it possibly be in the 
United States interest to shackle our 
own defense posture? 

Even more disturbing is the fact that 
the Senators propose to lock this ad- 
ministration into the sublimits policy 
by simple legislation— in other words, 
amend a treaty in an unconstitutional 
way. They propose to achieve the 
effect of a treaty without abiding by 
the constitutional requirements of 
ratifying a treaty. They propose to 
hamstring the United States without 
the debate and two-thirds consensus 
that is a basic fact of the treaty proc- 
ess. That is why the President has said 
that he will veto any legislation that 
includes these pseudo-treaty elements. 
The President is right on target. 

Even worse is that the facts the Sen- 
ators allege simply are not so. The So- 
viets are not complying with the 
sublimits. Those who have carefully 
studied this matter know for certain 
that the Soviet Union has already ex- 
ceeded two of the three numerical sub- 
limits— and the Soviets are desperately 
trying to hide these violations through 
camouflage and deception. 

Obviously, Mr. President, when we 
begin discussing this matter, we enter 
upon a field where much information 
is highly classified. But we don't have 
to go into classified matter to demon- 
strate that the Soviets are not observ- 
ing the sublimits. I will demonstrate 
these violations at length from open 
sources. But to be certain, I have con- 
ferred with key intelligence, defense, 
and national security authorities in 
the administration, and they have con- 
firmed that the following statement is 
both correct and unclassified: 

The Soviets exceeded the SALT II 
sublimit of 1,200 permitted MIRV'd 
ICBM's and MIRV'd SLBM's when the 5th 
Typhoon submarine recently began sea- 
trials. 

Moreover, some SS-X-24 MIRV'd ICBM 
railmobile launchers should now be account- 
able under the SALT II sublimit on MIRV'd 
ICBM's. It appears to me that the Soviets 
have not yet compensated for any of the 
SALT II-accountable SS-X-24 launchers. 
Therefore, the Soviets may also be exceed- 
ing the SALT II sublimit of 820 MIRV'd 
ICBM launchers. 

Mr. President, this statement, con- 
firmed by the sources I have men- 
tioned, clearly and conclusively shows 
that the Soviets have now violated the 
1,200 MIRV'd missile sublimits; and it 
also confirms when we know previous- 
ly that the Soviets are already violat- 
ing the 820 MIRV'd ICBM sublimit. 

Moreover, Mr. President, it should 
also be emphasized that we must 
assume that the Soviets are also vio- 
lating the third SALT II sublimit. The 
third sublimit limits MIRV'd missiles 
and bombers equipped with long range 
ALCM's to the number of 1,320. The 
experts have already said that if the 
Soviets elect to break out of the SALT 



II restraints, the most likely final step 
would be to put long range air- 
launched cruise missiles on the Back- 
fire bomber. Since the Soviets have 
violated everything else, it would be 
prudent for the United States to 
assume that they have gone to this 
final step. 

Mr. President, that is the essence of 
my statement today. However, those 
in the arms control field will want to 
follow the more detailed arguments 
which support these conclusions. 
These arguments follows. 

Mr. President, let me now focus on 
the main sublimit of the SALT II 
Treaty, the limit of 820 MIRV'd 
ICBM's. First, here is a summary of 
the strong evidence confirming that 
the Soviets are already violating this 
most important SALT II sublimit: 

Soviet leader Gorbachev himself ad- 
mitted at the last United States-Soviet 
summit meeting that the Soviets have 
deployed at least two railmobile 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers for the SS- 
24. This would put the Soviets right 
on the 820 MIRV'd ICBM sublimit. 
But according to several press reports, 
U.S. intelligence has detected deploy- 
ment of at least five SS-24 railmobile 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers. These five 
SS-24 railmobile launchers would put 
the Soviets at 823 MIRVed ICBM 
launchers. These SS-24 railmobile 
launchers are also reportedly heavily 
camouflaged and concealed, so the 
number of five detected must be con- 
sidered a minimum number. Third, the 
Soviets probably have deployed more 
than five SS-24's that the United 
States has reportedly detected. 

In fact, President Reagan officially 
warned Congress recently that there is 
a strong probability that the Soviets 
would try to covertly deploy many 
more railmobile SS-24's. This warning 
by the President has turned out to be 
accurate. The Soviets have not com- 
pensated for this deployment by dis- 
mantling other MIRV'd ICBM launch- 
ers. 

In sum, Mr. President, the Soviets 
therefore now have at least 823 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers deployed, 
and the SALT II sublimit on MIRV'd 
ICBM launchers is 820. 

Thus the Soviets have clearly violat- 
ed the main SALT II sublimit. 

Mr. President, United States intelli- 
gence has already given Congress im- 
portant unclassified testimony that 
Soviet factories for the mass produc- 
tion of the SS-24 missile and its rail- 
mobile launchers are already built. Ac- 
cording further to this testimony, the 
SS-24 missile and its railmobile 
launcher are both now in mass produc- 
tion. And since January, 1987, when 
deployment of at least five SS-24's was 
reportedly first detected, the SS-24 de- 
ployment program has progressed 
even further to now confirmed deploy- 
ment. 



Mr. President, I would reemphasize 
that these five SS-24 railmobile 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers detected are 
heavily camouflaged and concealed. 
The Soviets are even going so far as to 
deny the United States previously re- 
ported open source information on the 
total number of railroad cars they are 
producing, another important sign of 
clandestine SS-24 railmobile deploy- 
ment. The Soviets have also tried to 
deceive the United States into believ- 
ing that their acknowledged SS-24 de- 
ployment was consistent with SALT 
II, when it was not. 

To repeat, I want to emphasize that 
President Reagan has officially 
warned Congress that the Soviets 
would try to deploy even more railmo- 
bile SS-24 launchers even more covert- 
ly than we have so far been aware. 
Many more concealed railmobile SS-24 
ICBM launchers are probably even 
now covertly deployed, without the 
United States having yet detected 
them. 

The CIA has estimated, according 
again to unclassified testimony, that 
the Soviets will deploy more than 200 
railmobile SS-24 MIRV'd ICB;M 
launchers, carrying over 2,000 MIRV'd 
first strike warheads. There are re- 
portedly over 1,000 Soviet railroad 
tunnels along the extensive 160,000 
kilometer main Soviet railroad net- 
work directly supporting missile com- 
plexes, where SS-24's can be concealed 
and remain survivable. Moreover, each 
SS-24 launcher has a rapid reload and 
refire capability for several more mis- 
siles, doubling or tripling the SS-24 
force. 

Mr. President, I would point out to 
my distinguished colleagues that 
President Reagan will be fully justi- 
fied in vetoing any bill attempting to 
selectively and unconstitutionally leg- 
islate parts of the SALT II Treaty, 
such as the sublimits. The President 
recently reported to Congress that: 

A number of [Soviet] activities involving 
SALT II constituted violations of the core 
or central provisions of the Treaty frequent- 
ly cited by the proponents of SALT II as the 
primary reason for supporting the agree- 
ment. 

Thus in conclusion, Mr. President, 
the Soviets have already violated the 
three SALT II sublimits, which are 
among "the core or central provisions" 
of the SALT II Treaty. To sum up, the 
Soviets have clearly violated all three 
of the three overall numerical SALT 
II limits, all three of the three sub- 
limits, and they have also violated all 
of the main SALT II qualitative limits. 
While the Soviets have gutted the 
SALT II Treaty, starting their SALT 
II violations even before the ink was 
dry on the treaty document on June 
18, 1979, some of our distinguished col- 
leagues are trying to legislate United 
States compliance with selective parts 
of the treaty. Ironically, even these se- 



23110 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



lective parts of the treaty— the three 
sublimits— are themselves already 
being violated. 

Efforts to legislate U.S. compliance 
with an unratified SALT II Treaty are 
not only unconstitutional, but they 
constitute efforts aimed at American 
unilateral disarmament. The American 
people, however, have repeatedly re- 
jected American unilateral disarma- 
ment, as the 1980 and 1984 national 
elections clearly indicated. 

ANNEX! SOVIETS VIOLATE MAIN SALT II 
SUBLIMIT 

Mr. President, I will now make the 
Senate aware of the details of a new 
United States verification judgment, 
now reinforced, showing that the Sovi- 
ets violated the most important SALT 
II sublimit as of early October 1986. 

I would reemphasize that this Soviet 
SALT II sublimit violation first oc- 
curred as of early October 1986, over a 
month before the United States ex- 
ceeded a SALT II sublimit on Novem- 
ber 28, 1986. 

Our distinguished colleague, Senator 
Jim McClure, accurately predicted 
this. In his Senate floor speech of Oc- 
tober 17, 1986, Senator McClure 
stated that at least three railmobile 
MIRV'd SS-24 ICBM launchers were 
probably deployed. The new evidence 
indicates that he was right on target 
and correct. This new violation focuses 
upon the large-scale deployment of 
the Soviet SS-X-24 ICBM, and upon 
the number deployed. 

SOVIETS ANNOUNCE INTENTION TO EXCEED ALL 
SALT II SUBLIMITS 

The Soviets reportedly told United 
States START negotiators in Geneva 
in late 1983 that they intended to 
exceed all three of the SALT II subli- 
mits on MIRV'd missiles and bombers 
equipped with long range ALCM's. Mr. 
President, the Soviets have actually 
carried out their intention. 

The Soviets have been violating the 
main SALT II sublimit since early Oc- 
tober 1986. The first Soviet SALT II 
sublimit violation occurred well before 
the October 28, 1986 United States de- 
ployment of the 131st United States 
B-52 deployment equipped with long- 
range ALCM's. Moreover, the Soviets 
have already launched their fifth Ty- 
phoon submarine and their fourth 
Delta IV submarine. Now that these 
submarines have gone on sea trials, 
the Soviets have gone over the Salt II 
sublimit of 1,200 MIRV'd ICBM and 
MIRV'd SLBM launchers. 

Finally, Soviet covert break out de- 
ployment of AS-15 long range ALCM's 
on each of their 300 intercontinental 
Backfire bombers would put the Sovi- 
ets over the third SALT II sublimit of 
1,320 MIRV'd missiles and bombers 
equipped with long range ALCM's. 
The CIA believes that the Soviets 
would covertly deploy long-range 
ALCM's on the intercontinental Back- 
fire bomber if they decided to break 
out of SALT II. Mr. President, it is 



clear that the 22 confirmed Soviet 
SALT II violations constitute this 
Soviet break out. But we shall consider 
these two Soviet sublimit violations in 
more detail later. 

I will concentrate first on the details 
of the Soviet violation of the most im- 
portant SALT II sublimit, the sublimit 
of 820 on MIRV'd ICBM launchers. 

MIRV'd ICBM's are the most dan- 
gerous weapons in the world, because 
they can destroy any target in the 
world in 30 minutes. The 820 sublimit 
is therefore the main SALT II sublim- 
it. The Soviet SS-X-24, a MIRV'd rail- 
mobile ICBM, is the focus of this vio- 
lation. 

SS-X-24 DEPLOYMENT IMPENDING THROUGHOUT 
1986 

Mr. President, in March, 1986, the 
Defense Department stated: 

The SS-X-24 deployment in a railmobile 
mode could begin as early as late 1986. Early 
preparations for the deployment of the SS- 
X-24 are already underway. 

At that time, President Reagan also 
officially informed Congress of his 
concern about the effects of the Sovi- 
ets camouflage, concealment, and de- 
ception program upon United States 
ability to detect Soviet deployment of 
the SS-X-24. He said that given the 
extensive concealment associated with 
the SS-X-24 ICBM Program, and that 
inherent mobility of this ICBM, there 
is a strong probability that the Soviets 
will try to deploy additional SS-24 
ICBM launchers more covertly than 
we are aware of today. They thereby 
could avoid compensatory SALT II dis- 
mantlement of other MIRV'd ICBM's. 
The President was wise to predict 
more covert deployment of the railmo- 
bile SS-X-24 ICBM. President Rea- 
gan's official prediction has turned out 
to be very accurate indeed. 

The CIA and the Arms Control and 
Disarmament Agency stated in 
August, 1986, that: 

We can not exclude the possibility, in the 
context of the SALT II Treaty, that several 
launchers for the SS-X-24, a railmobile 
MIRV'd ICBM, may have left tr-eir place of 
final assembly and may therefore be ac- 
countable under SALT II. 

Mr. President, the likelihood of SS- 
X-24 deployment has steadily in- 
creased since last August, 1986. By 
early October, 1986, it would soon be 
time for the United States to remove 
the "X" from its designator, standing 
for "experimental." The possibility 
that the SS-24 has been operational 
since early October, 1986, is quite 
strong. 

The Defense Department's Soviet 
Military Power edition for 1987 stated 
in March, 1987, that: 

An extensive network of rail support fa- 
cilities continues to take shape in prepara- 
tion for the imminent deployment of the 
railmobile SS-X-24 ICBM . . . deployment 
of the railmobile SS-X-24 is expected 
soon . . . The SS-X-24 is well along in its 
flight-test program. The SS-X-24 deploy- 
ment in a railmobile mode is expected to 



begin in 1987 . . . Substantial increases in 
ICBM production are expected by the end 
of the decade as the SS-X-24 enters series 
production. 

Mr. President, over half of the year 
1987 has gone by and we are already at 
the end of the decade, so the SS-X-24 
must be in series production and must 
be deployed by now, by the Defense 
Department's own best estimate. 

GORBACHEV ANNOUNCES 1986 SS-X-!!4 
DEPLOYMENT AT REYKJAVIK 

On October 11, 1986, Soviet Leader 
Gorbachev stated formally at the Ice- 
land Summit to President Reagan that 
the Soviet Union had deployed 820 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers. 

Mr. President, the most reasonable 
interpretation of this Gorbachev state- 
ment is that the Soviets were acknowl- 
edging at the highest level that at 
least 2 railmobile SS-X-24 MIRV'd 
ICBM launchers were operational, 
were deployed, and therefore, had en- 
tered the Soviet SALT II-accountable 
inventory. This was evidence that the 
Soviets themselves believed that the 
"X" in the SS-X-24's designator could 
be removed. 

Mr. President, why do we conclude 
that at least two SS-24 railmobile 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers were de- 
ployed? Because the United States, 
using its national technical means of 
SALT verification, could at that time 
confirm only 818 Soviet MIRV'd 
ICBM launchers as deployed, and all 
of them were silo launchers. Moreover, 
the Soviets themselves have previously 
acknowledged having 818 MIRVed 
ICBM silo launchers in their required 
SALT II data exchanges. 

Thus, the Soviets had deployed two 
new nonsilo based MIRV'd ICBM 
launchers. These had to be mobile 
MIRV'd ICBM launchers. Further, 
these had to be railmobile SS-24's, be- 
cause the SS-24 was the only Soviet 
ICBM known to have recently com- 
pleted its flight test program, was a 
MIRV'd ICBM, and had in fact repeat- 
edly been tested from railmobile 
launchers. 

Mr. President, deployment of at 
least two railmobile MIRV'd SS-24 
ICBM launchers, was therefore, the 
only explanation for Gorbachev's 
statement that the Soviets had de- 
ployed 820 MIRV'd ICBM launchers, 
because such deployment was the only 
explanation which fit all the known 
facts. 

Thus, Gorbachev had admitted de- 
ployment of at least two SS-24 railmo- 
bile MIRV'd ICBM launchers, and this 
admission had come from the very 
highest level of the Soviet Govern- 
ment. 

NEW REAGAN ADMINISTRATION VERIFICATION 
JUDGMENT— THREE SS-24 FAILMOBILE 

LAUNCHERS DEPLOYED 

The only Reagan administration of- 
ficial legally responsible for verifica- 
tion, Dr. Manfred Eimer, Assistant Di- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23111 



rector of the Arms Control and Disar- 
mament Agency for Verification and 
Intelligence, stated the following new 
verification judgment on January 31, 
1987: 

On two occasions, first at Reykjavik on 
October 11, 1986, and again on January 21, 
1987, in the newspaper Moscow News 
Today, the Soviets provided a listing of 
their strategic offensive arms as of October 
11, 1986. These lists included a count of 820 
for the category "Launchers of ICBMs 
equipped with MIRV's." That count of 820 
is greater than the U.S. can confirm, unless 
several railmobile MIRVd SS-X-24 ICBM 
launchers are assumed to have been added 
to the Soviet inventory. 

In a recent TASS article dated January 
28, 1987, written in English and therefore 
intended for a Western audience, a Soviet 
military commentator in discussing Soviet 
strategic programs, stated: "In deploying 
missiles of a single new class (SS-24) which 
is allowed under the SALT II Treaty, the 
Soviet Union phased out a corresponding 
number of old missiles." 

That statement also strongly implies that 
several SS-X-24s have entered the Soviet 
inventory. 

Since this ACDA judgment was 
made on January 31, 1987, the SS-24 
program has advanced even further. 
Moreover, the Soviets have officially 
provided the U.S. their 820 number 
yet again, and in a context in which 
they deliberately understated the 
numbers of other Soviet strategic sys- 
tems. Thus the Soviets are clearly de- 
liberately sending the U.S. an impor- 
tant signal when they claim to have 
820 MIRVd ICBM launchers in their 
SALT-II accountable inventory. 

RECENT SOVIET ADMISSIONS— BEST EVIDENCE 
THAT THREE SS-24'S ARE DEPLOYED 

Mr. President, we must dissect and 
closely analyze the Soviet admissions 
and the ACDA judgment. We need to 
answer the following questions: 

Do the Soviets regard their SS-24 to 
be operationally deployed, and if so, 
how many are deployed? 

It is extremely important to note 
that in the TASS statement, the Sovi- 
ets themselves have removed the "X" 
for "experimental" from the designa- 
tion for the SS-24. 

This is a clear and unprecedented 
sign that the Soviets themselves 
regard the SS-24 as having left its 
place of final assembly, as operational, 
as deployed, and therefore part of the 
Soviet inventory and accountable 
under the expired SALT II Treaty. 

We know that the Soviets are ex- 
tremely careful in their use of designa- 
tors for their missiles, and only they 
have perfect knowledge of the status 
of their SS-24. Thus removal of the 
*'X" from the SS-24's designator by 
the Soviet military commentator, who 
would have definitive knowledge, 
should be regarded as confirming our 
interpretation of Gorbachev's Reykja- 
vik Summit statement. 

Dr. Eimer also stated that he as- 
sumed that "several" SS-24's were de- 
ployed. According to Webster's Dic- 



tionary, "several" means "more than 
two," and more than two is at least 
three. 

Moreover, the Soviet TASS state- 
ment itself also suggests how many 
SS-24's are part of the Soviet invento- 
ry and are SALT II-accountable, be- 
cause it acknowledges that with the 
SS-24 deployment explicitly described, 
compensatory dismantling would be 
required for the Soviets to stay below 
the SALT II sublimit of 820 MIRVd 
ICBM launchers. The Soviets would 
not have to dismantle in compensation 
for SS-24 deployment unless they de- 
ployed more than 2, because the U.S. 
can confirm only 818 Soviet silo-based 
MIRVd ICBM launchers. 

Mr. President, thus the Soviet mili- 
tary commentator writing in TASS 
clearly meant that at least 3 or more 
SS-24 railmobile MIRVd ICBM 
launchers had been deployed. The 
Soviet military commentator was thus 
taunting the U.S. with relentlessly 
growing Soviet strategic superiority. 

The Soviets have therefore deployed 
at least 3 railmobile MIRVd SS-24 
ICBM launchers, by their own admis- 
sion. But more than 3 have reportedly 
been detected by U.S. National Tech- 
nical Means of verification, as I shall 
soon point out. 

NO SOVIET COMPENSATORY MIRV 
DISMANTLEMENT— THE SOVIETS ARE OVER 820 

The fact is that compensatory dis- 
mantlement has not been accom- 
plished by the Soviets. The Defense 
Department's Soviet Military Power 

1987 released in March, 1987, and the 
January 1987 Joint Chiefs of Staff FY 

1988 Military Posture Statement both 
state that all 818 Soviet MIRVd 
ICBM silos are operational and SALT 
II-accountable as MIRVd ICBM 
launchers. Thus with deployment of 3 
SS-24's, the Soviets are over the 820 
SALT II sublimit. 

U.S. INTELLIGENCE HAS DETECTED AT LEAST FIVE 
SS-24'S DEPLOYED 

Recent press reports citing intelli- 
gence sources indicate that at least 5 
SS-24 railmobile MIRVd ICBM 
launchers have been detected by U.S. 
National Technical Means of verifica- 
tion as having left their place of final 
assembly, as operational, and there- 
fore as deployed and part of the Soviet 
SALT II-accountable ICBM inventory. 
Given President Reagan's recent pre- 
diction that many more SS-24's would 
be deployed even more covertly than 
we were then aware, many more than 
5 SS-24's may indeed have already 
been deployed, but are not yet detect- 
ed and may never be detected, due to 
ever increasing Soviet camouflage, 
concealment, and deception. 

DEPLOYMENT OF 5 OR MORE SS-24'S VIOLATES 
SALT II 8 20 SUBLIMIT 

In sum, Mr. President, the Soviets 
are admitting deployment of at least 3 
SS-24's, but the United States has de- 
tected at least 5 SS-24's deployed, and 
because there has not been any Soviet 



ICBM MIRV silo dismantling in com- 
pensation, the Soviets have clearly ex- 
ceeded the SALT II sublimit of 820 
MIRVd ICBM launchers. Moreover, 
many more SS-24's will soon be de- 
ployed. As I have already pointed out, 
Soviet Military Power 1987 states that: 
"Substantial increases in Soviet ICBM 
production are expected by the end of 
the decade of the 1980's as the SS-X- 
24 enters series production." 

SOVIET CONCEALMENT AND DECEPTION MAKES 
DETECTION OF SS-24 DIFFICULT 

The Soviets are engaging in exten- 
sive camouflage, concealment, and de- 
ception to hide the precise number of 
SS-24's deployed and their location 
from the United States. Thus Presi- 
dent Reagan was correct to officially 
warn Congress recently that the Sovi- 
ets would deploy the SS-24 even more 
covertly than we are aware. The Amer- 
ican national security departments 
and agencies should be alarmed by 
now, because increased Soviet camou- 
flage, concealment, and deception has 
probably caused the United States to 
fail to detect many more SS-24's 
which are even more covertly de- 
ployed. 

It is significant that for the first 
time the Soviets are not revealing 
their production figures for railroad 
rolling stock. We will surely be looking 
closely at Soviet railroad car plants, in 
order to account for their railcar pro- 
duction. This unprecedented Soviet 
reticence on railcar production is prob- 
ably related to their program of con- 
cealed and deceptive deployment of 
the railmobile SS-24. 

Why did Soviet Leader Gorbachev 
admit SS-24 deployment, if the Sovi- 
ets are deploying it clandestinely? The 
Soviets are probably admitting SS-24 
deployment in order to try to impress 
and even scare the United States with 
a further increased Soviet ICBM 
threat. Indeed, the main purpose of 
Soviet strategic weapons is intimida- 
tion. But consistent with their exten- 
sive camouflage, concealment, and de- 
ception program for the SS-24, the So- 
viets are falsely claiming that this de- 
ployment is consistent with SALT II. 
They were probably hoping that the 
United States would not be able to 
detect more than 2, and that the 
United States would therefore believe 
their deception plan to announce SS- 
24 deployment as consistent with 
SALT II. But the CIA has estimated 
that the Soviets will probably deploy 
about 200 railmobile SS-24's over the 
next several years. There are over 
1,000 tunnels on the extensive Soviet 
rail network, so the Soviets could 
deploy these SS-24's in the tunnels 
where they would be concealed and 
survivable. 

TWO OTHER SALT II SUBLIMITS VIOLATED 

The Soviets have also violated the 
other two SALT II sublimits. The CIA 
believes that the Soviets would covert- 



23112 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



ly deploy AS-15 long range ALCM's on 
their intercontinental Backfire bomb- 
ers in the event that they were to 
break out of the SALT II Treaty. The 
22 confirmed Soviet SALT II viola- 
tions indicate that the Soviets have 
broken out of SALT II. Thus Soviet 
covert, break out deployment of AS-15 
long range ALCM's on each of 300 
intercontinental Backfire bombers 
puts the Soviets at 1,511 MIRV'd mis- 
siles and bombers equipped with long 
range ALCM's, exceeding the SALT II 
sublimit of 1,320 on MIRV'd missiles 
and bombers equipped with long range 
ALCM's. Alternatively, Soviet deploy- 
ment of long range (650 kilometers) 
AS-3 ALCM's on 100 Bear A/B/C 
bombers, plus 60 Bear H bombers with 
AS-15 long range ALCM's and 8 Black- 
jack bombers with AS-15's, would put 
the Soviets at 1,379, also exceeding the 
SALT II sublimit of 1,320. 

The Soviets are already violating the 
third SALT II sublimit. The Soviets 
have already begun the sea trials of 
the 4th Delta IV SSBN submarine and 
the 5th Typhoon SSBM submarine. 
This puts the Soviets at 1,211 MIRV'd 
ICBMs and MIRV'd SLBM's. This ex- 
ceeds the SALT II sublimit of 1,200 on 
MIRV'd ICBM's/SLBM's. 

In conclusion, Mr. President, the So- 
viets are violating the most important 
SALT II sublimit, and are also violat- 
ing the second and the third. 

In sum, the new Soviet violation of 
the 1,200 MIRV'd missile sublimit is 
conclusive, and the previously asserted 
Soviet violation of the 820 MIRV'd 
ICBM sublimit is strongly supported 
and confirmed. The Soviets are also 
violating the third SALT II numerical 
sublimit of 1,320 MIRV'd missiles and 
ALCM-equipped bombers. In fact, the 
Soviets are already violating all three 
SALT II sublimits. 

We must keep in mind that the 22 
Presidentially confirmed Soviet SALT 
II violations altogether indicate a 
Soviet decision to "break out" of the 
SALT II Treaty. The evidence of the 
expanding pattern of Soviet SALT II 
violations indicates quite clearly that 
Soviet break out has already occurred. 
In fact, Soviet break out from SALT II 
began even as Soviet Leader Brezhnev 
signed the treaty on June 18, 1987. 
The conclusive Soviet violation of the 
1,200 sublimit and the strong evidence 
confirming Soviet violation of the 820 
sublimit are further evidence of Soviet 
SALT II break out. Second, the CIA 
has warned that, in the event that 
Soviet SALT II break out could be 
confirmed, the United States should 
consider that the Soviets are also vio- 
lating the third SALT II sublimit. 
Thus, because the Soviets are indeed 
confirmed to have broken out of SALT 
II with now 24 violations, they must 
be considered to be violating the third 
SALT II sublimit. 

Therefore, the Soviets are violating 
all three of the SALT II sublimits. 



But the Soviet Ambassador to the 
United States, Yuri Dubinin, wrote on 
March 1, 1987 in the U.S. Parade mag- 
azine, that: "We [the Soviets] are stay- 
ing within the limits of the SALT I 
and SALT II agreements." 

Unfortunately, this statement is 
false, but it is a good example of the 
strong Soviet tradition of disinforma- 
tion and deception. This kind of Soviet 
deception is exactly what the United 
States must be on its guard against in 
negotiating a new INF treaty. 



THE PROBLEM OF HIGH-LEVEL 
RADIOACTIVE WASTE 

Mr. REID. Mr. President, with the 
exception of my distinguished col- 
leagues from Georgia and South Caro- 
lina, I doubt that many Members of 
the Senate know that stretching along 
the border of those two great States is 
the Department of Energy's Savannah 
River Nuclear Plant. One would think 
that it would be difficult to keep a fa- 
cility that encompasses some 192,000 
acres or 300 square miles, employs 
over 15,000 workers and has an annual 
budget of over $1 billion, largely out of 
view of the public eye but that is the 
case. 

This incredible industrial complex, 
operated by Du Pont, is a key installa- 
tion for the production and research 
of nuclear materials for national de- 
fense and peacetime applications. Its 
primary purpose is to produce the 
basic materials used in the fabrication 
of nuclear weapons, primarily plutoni- 
um-239 and tritium. 

The reason I bring this to your at- 
tention is that an unfortunate and 
lethal biproduct of this production is 
high-level radioactive waste. While we 
spend much of the Senate's time dis- 
cussing the potential holocaust that 
could result from the use of nuclear 
weapons, we tend to lose sight of the 
present and future dangers that can 
be caused by the side products of their 
production. 

High-level radioactive waste is, of 
course, the ultimate garbage of our 
civilization. For over 30 years the 
liquid wastes from this program have 
been stored at the site in tanks that 
can hold 1.3 million gallons each. In 
total, 33 million gallons of high-level 
radioactive waste is stored at this com- 
plex. Some of the older tanks have de- 
veloped leaks, just as they have at an- 
other DOE site in Hanford, WA. In 
1973, DOE began research, develop- 
ment, and testing of new state-of-the- 
art process for permanent disposal of 
this high level radioactive waste. Be- 
cause the leaking waste threatens the 
ground water at Savannah River, it 
has been selected to host the first pro- 
duction-scale facility to accomplish 
this. This facility, which was begun in 
1983, is to be completed and operation- 
al by 1989. 



As I have been advised, the process 
begins with in-tank evaporation 
whereby the liquid high-level radioac- 
tive waste is reduced by two-thirds and 
is concentrated in two forms— sludge 
and salt. The salt's appearance and 
chemical composition is similar to that 
of fertilizer. After radioactive cesium 
is removed while the salt is in the stor- 
age tank, the salt is mixed with a spe- 
cially formulated cement and is 
poured into a permanent disposal site 
at Savannah River. The sludge is a 
thick, brown substance that contains 
most of the radioactivity that must be 
isolated from the environment for 
long periods of time. This sludge is 
what will be processed in the defense 
waste processing facility and will be 
encapsulated and ultimately disposed 
of in a permanent high-level radioac- 
tive waste repository. 

This sludge will be washed and 
pumped to the facility where radioac- 
tivity from the salt decontamination 
process will be added along with fine 
particles of glass. The mixture will be 
placed in an electronic furnance at 
2,100 degrees Fahrenheit where it will 
become a special form of molten glass 
with the sludge dissolved within it. 
The furnace will be able to make 
about 230 pounds of this glass per 
hour. Any radioactive gas produced 
will be vaporized and reintroduced to 
the system. The molten glass contain- 
ing the sludge is then poured into a 
stainless steel canister 2 feet in diame- 
ter, 10 feet tall and weighing about 2 
tons. 

Once the glass waste has cooled and 
solidified, the outside of the canister is 
sandblasted to remove any radioactiv- 
ity deposited on the canister during 
the glass-pouring operation. The glass 
and water residue from the sandblast 
process is reintroduced to the process. 
The canister is then permanently 
sealed with a stainless steel plug. Fi- 
nally, the canister is moved by a spe- 
cial vehicle to a temporary storage site 
that holds 2,300 canisters. They are 
meant to last until a permanent waste 
repository is built. This, then, is the 
current method by which the Depart- 
ment of Energy intends to neutralize 
high-level radioactive waste generated 
by the Nation's defense program. 

Mr. President, the main point that I 
want to make to my colleagues today 
is that this nuclear waste storage proc- 
ess is brand new. It replaces a storage 
process that has failed because the 
steel tanks that were originally used to 
hold the nuclear waste products at 
this facility are deteriorating and that 
there is a real danger of nuclear con- 
tamination of the ground water in the 
areas surrounding the facility. 

I am sure that the original technolo- 
gy that was developed to store this nu- 
clear waste was thought to be state of 
the art almost 40 years ago when it 
was developed. Now we find that an 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23113 



entirely new and expensive process- 
costing $1 billion— is needed to replace 
the failing tanks— and this is only con- 
sidered to be an interim solution to 
the final disposal of this toxic waste. 

It would be catastrophic to find, 30 
to 40 years from now, that the tech- 
nology that the Department of Energy 
tells us today will permit the safe stor- 
age of high-level nuclear waste, possi- 
bly in my home State of Nevada, also 
fails. That is my deepest concern and 
the reason that I will oppose the rush 
to begin dumping nuclear garbage in 
Nevada, or any place else. 

The Energy Committee recently re- 
ported out legislation aimed at speed- 
ing up the process for the selection of 
a permanent nuclear dump site and 
also tilted that search— for primarily 
political reasons— in the direction of 
Nevada. While I can understand the 
desire on the part of many in Govern- 
ment and the nuclear industry to get 
the decision on a nuclear waste site 
behind them, I do not intend to sacri- 
fice the safety of Nevadans and their 
children and their children's children 
for political expediency. 

I also want to alert my colleagues 
that I intend to spend many hours 
over the next few months educating 
them on the inherent dangers and 
shortcoming of rushing to a political 
judgment on a question as important 
as who will have to live with the Na- 
tion's nuclear garbage for generations 
to come. They will also be hearing a 
lot more about the lack of experience 
we have in dealing with the problems 
inherent in long-term waste storage 
and disposal. Finally, I will be offering 
what I consider to be sound alterna- 
tive proposals more in keeping with 
the seriousness of this problem than 
the one reported by the Energy Com- 
mittee dealing with the nuclear waste 
repository siting question. 

Mr. President, I urge my colleagues 
to follow this debate closely and not 
rush to judgment on this issue. It 
should be likened to the debate that is 
taking place and will continue to take 
place in their own States as these 
States choose sites and technologies 
for the disposal of low-level radioac- 
tive waste. Quite simply, this question 
is vital to our future and deserves the 
kind of close scrutiny and detailed 
debate for which this body is famous. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I 
know that the Senators who have 
been participating in the colloquy this 
morning concerning the defense bill 
still have statements to make. I had 
intended to make a comment on extra- 
neous subjects, and I ask my good 
friend from West Virginia whether it 
is the intention of the leadership to 
extend this morning business time 
beyond 11 o'clock. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. 

Mr. President, how much time would 
the distinguished Senator need? 



Mr. STEVENS. About 10 minutes. 
But I see my good friend on the floor. 
He started it this morning, and I be- 
lieve he wants to wind it up, and I will 
be glad to yield for that purpose and 
then make my statement. I am in no 
rush. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, how 
much time does the Senator desire? 

Mr. DASCHLE. About 10 minutes. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the morning 
business period be extended 40 min- 
utes and that the three Senators and 
Mr. Metzenbaum each be permitted to 
speak for not to exceed 10 minutes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
four Senators being the Senator from 
Alaska, the Senator from South 
Dakota, the Senator from Montana, 
and the Senator from Ohio. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Chair and I 
thank the Senator from Alaska. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator from South Dakota. 



DOD AUTHORIZATIONS AND 
ARMS CONTROL 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, I 
thank my distinguished colleague 
from Alaska for his willingness to 
allow me to close this debate. 

I also thank the distinguished ma- 
jority leader for his willingness to ac- 
commodate all of us this morning. He 
has indicated an interest in this issue 
and has allowed us great latitude as we 
have discussed it in great length this 
morning. 

I believe it has been a good debate 
and certainly one that adds to the dis- 
cussion and ultimately the under- 
standing of all Members toward this 
controversial and very substantive 
issue. 

If we judge the debate by the decibel 
level, perhaps the other side might 
win. But I would hope that rather 
than decibels, we really judge the issue 
on the basis of logic. 

The Senator from Indiana is not on 
the floor, and I wish he were, because 
I would like to address a couple of 
points he made very demonstrably this 
morning with regard to his interpreta- 
tion of the situation as he sees it legis- 
latively. 

It was the argument of the Senator 
from Indiana that the role of the 
Senate is not to interpret a treaty, 
that the role of the Senate is simply to 
approve a treaty, that he really did 
not think it was our prerogative to 
question whether or not the treaty as 
it existed for 15 years ought to be 
changed in any way as it was inter- 
preted back in 1972. 

I wonder whether he meant that, 
whether he meant to say that we, as a 
Senate, ought not interpret a treaty. I 
would have asked, had I had the op- 



portunity, whether we, as a Senate, 
can approve anything if we first do not 
interpret it, whether we do not inter- 
pret every bill, every piece of legisla- 
tion. Every matter that comes before 
this body must, by its very nature, be 
interpreted, by definition, before it is 
voted upon. 

If it is not the role of the Senate to 
interpet, how in the world can it be 
the role of the Senate to approve? 
How would you approve any treaty? 
How do we pass upon anything if we 
do not first interpret? 

For 15 years the ABM Treaty was in- 
terpreted by seven Congresses and by 
three administrations as we have had 
it. How is it now that we can delegate 
that responsibility solely to this ad- 
ministration, without the ability to re- 
consider, without the ability for any of 
us to question whether or not the sole 
interpretation of that President is cor- 
rect? 

He is right about one thing and that 
is that this is a constitutional issue, 
perhaps not in the same manner 
within which he determines or decides 
or questions that constitutional issue. 

But this is a constitutional question. 
It is a constitutional question because 
the question here is not whether or 
not we have the right to interpret, 
whether or not we as a Congress have 
the right to ultimately approve those 
treaties and whether on the basis of 
our approval that treaty will be imple- 
mented and, second, whether or not 
we have the right to appropriate funds 
in accordance with that treaty or any- 
thing else. 

Those are the two fundamental con- 
stitutional questions. Does the Senate 
have the right to approve by, first, in- 
terpretation and, second, do we have 
the right to appropriate? 

The answer unequivocally is "yes." 
We retain the right to approve trea- 
ties. We retain the right to appropri- 
ate funds and we must as we consider 
this issue and every other one uphold 
that right within this body. Democrats 
and Republicans believe in the prerog- 
ative of the Senate to carry out its 
functions constitutionally and that is 
what we are talking about here. 

There are those who have said that 
the consideration of this fundamental 
constitutional question has no busi- 
ness on the defense bill, that it be- 
longs on the State Department bill. 
But I would ask anyone whether or 
not the State Department funds SDI, 
whether or not the State Department 
has any prerogative with regard to 
funding of any weapon, SDI or any- 
thing else. 

The opponents say they will give us 
an opportunity to bring this bill up in 
some other form. But they have not 
agreed to take up the Levin-Nunn 
amendment in conjunction with that 
issue with which it is directly associat- 
ed and that is SDI funding. Give us 



23114 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



that opportunity to bring up Levin- 
Nunn in association with SDI and per- 
haps we have a deal, but until that 
time, let us consider this legislation. 
Let us consider this constitutional 
issue. Let us consider the Levin-Nunn 
amendment on that particular bill 
with which it is directly associated and 
that is the defense authorization bill. 

So let me say again, Mr. President, I 
think this has been very good debate, 
a substantive debate, one that will 
allow us further consideration of this 
issue and ultimately let us hope that 
in this debate and in this disclosure we 
have seen fit again this morning that 
we can resolve these differences, that 
in some way we can bring together 
both sides, that we can resolve the 
constitutional question before us and 
ultimately that we can put the defense 
authorization bill before this body to 
do the things we must, so that we 
avoid doing something that we have 
not done in more than 30 years, failed 
to pass a DOD authorization bill in 
one session of Congress. 

I thank all of the participants for 
their willingness to discuss this issue, 
to debate the issue as we have this 
morning, and I thank the President, 
and I yield the floor. 



THE WAR POWERS ACT 

Mr. ADAMS. Mr. President, I rise to 
discuss the War Powers Act. As we 
prepare to leave on the August break, 
we leave with some satisfaction that 
we have addressed a number of major 
issues. But there is one major issue 
before us today that we have left to- 
tally unresolved. Over 5 months ago, 
the administration unilaterally com- 
mitted this Nation to an escalating in- 
volvement in the Persian Gulf by 
agreeing to have Kuwaiti tankers fly 
the American flag and provide Ameri- 
can naval protection for those vessels. 

I rise today, Mr. President, to discuss 
a lawsuit which a number of us filed 
yesterday which I will discuss in a 
short period of time and will at a later 
time discuss further. We have filed a 
suit to have the War Powers Act car- 
ried out by the administration and the 
Congress. 

Mr. President, after the President of 
the United States made a decision 
without involving the Congress, with- 
out actually anyone really knowing 
about it, to reflag Kuwaiti tankers, he 
made a commitment to that country. 
We have seen 37 American servicemen 
aboard the U.S.S. Stark killed by a 
missile fired by one of the belligerents 
in the Persian Gulf war. We have lost 
men in a helicopter, attempting to 
land on one of our vessels which had 
to move without careful planning into 
that gulf area. 

We could have lost a great many 
more of our personnel to a mine if it 
had instead hit the escorting vessel. 



Now, Mr. President, the President of 
the United States and the Secretary of 
Defense indicate that they are pre- 
pared to indefinitely increase our mili- 
tary presence in the gulf region, but 
we have not seen, during all this 
period, meaningful consultation with 
the Congress. We have not seen a full- 
scale congressional debate. And what 
we have not seen is the Congress 
accept its role and responsibility under 
the Constitution and under the War 
Powers Act enacted in 1973, to author- 
ize—it is required— our servicemen to 
be placed into a situation where immi- 
nent involvement in hostilities is clear- 
ly indicated. 

Mr. President, if we have not seen 
clearly indicated imminent involve- 
ment in hostilities with what has hap- 
pened in the last 3 weeks, I do not 
know what imminent hostilities could 
possibly be. 

We have the situation in existence 
right now that requires cooperation of 
the Congress under the War Powers 
Act. It requires the President to send 
notice to the Congress. It requires 
Congress to respond and authorize or 
not authorize within 60 days. This is 
part of the war-making power of the 
Congress. It is a power that has been 
granted and signed into law in 1973 in 
order to prevent the President of the 
United States using the Commander in 
Chief powers and the foreign policy 
powers to involve the United States in 
a war, which clearly is the power of 
the Congress. 

This act was created after the Viet- 
nam war to prevent a continual escala- 
tion of activity by the United States 
using the Commander in Chief powers 
to really go into war without the 
Nation being mobilized, without the 
Congress being mobilized, without ev- 
eryone understanding what that 
policy is. 

Last week, we had an example of the 
President reaching out, apparently, or 
Congress reaching out, but at least a 
reaching out to establish a bipartisan 
policy in Central America. I am not 
fully persuaded that policy is right, 
but I do accept the wisdom of having 
congressional involvement. In that 
particular case, we do not have Ameri- 
can servicemen— thank God— at this 
point involved in that conflict. In the 
Persian Gulf, we have American serv- 
ice personnel directly involved in a sit- 
uation where we have a military action 
going on full scale between two major 
powers and we are in the process, 
through this reflagging system, of 
aiding an ally to one of those belliger- 
ents in that gulf. 

Mr. President, I do not suggest that 
the administration's escalating the 
Persian Gulf war by reflagging these 
vessels was a short-term policy. I am 
saying, instead, that we have vital in- 
terests in the Persian Gulf. We will 
have to be there a long time. And 
being there a long time, we should not 



take precipitate actions. We should 
have the Congress of the United 
States utilizing the War Powers Act, 
taking part, as it should, in defending 
our vital interests. 

I am not sure reflagging is our vital 
interest. That should be debated. We 
have not had the opportunity to vote 
on that. 

We are preparing to repeat the mis- 
takes of the past. The President of the 
United States has not been involved in 
consulting with Congress. When we 
debated amendments designed to 
delay reflagging, we were told there 
was no need for legislative action. 
There was, "After all, the Congress 
had been informed." Mr. President, 
there is a big difference between con- 
sulting and informing. The fact that 
long after the President made a com- 
mitment and we were told about it 
does not mean we were consulted. An'J 
even if we had been consulted, there is 
a big difference between consultation 
and the constitutional powers under 
the War Powers Act and ultimately 
the power of whether or not to declare 
war. 

We put the test up of whether or 
not American servicemen are subject 
to imminent hostilities. Mr. President, 
that is occurring. 

There are a number of different pro- 
posals. I do not care which one we use. 
I am sad that we had to resort yester- 
day to a lawsuit to force the use of the 
War Power Act. We did twice before 
during these last 3 months. First, Sen- 
ators Bumpers, Hatfield, and I joined 
in introducing S. 1343, legislation that 
would require the President to report 
to us, Congress, under 4(a) 1 of the 
War Power Act. That legislation had 
been considered by the Foreign Rela- 
tions Committee, was voted on, voted 
out, reported to the Senate, and sits 
on the calendar before the President 
of the Senate right now as order No. 
225. It has not been brought up on the 
floor and it should be. 

We have tried that. We have tried 
desperately to do that. We have gone 
to other bills. We have obtained votes 
and those votes indicated a majority of 
the Senate have grave doubts and 
wanted to reexamine the vote on the 
reflagging system. It was not a ques- 
tion of whether or not we stayed in 
the Persian Gulf, it was not cut and 
run, it was not a question of the mili- 
tary. It is a question, is this a confron- 
tation of policy? If it is a confronta- 
tion of policy, did we want to do that? 
And above all, are we prepared, mili- 
tarily or psychologically, for the im- 
pacts that will come before us? 

Have we overextended our military? 
Many have stood on this floor and said 
we are overextended. You cannot put 
those aluminum frigates up in the 
gulf. We have talked about the fact of 
mines. We have talked about air cover, 
we have talked about the fact that 






August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23115 



every one of our allies has pulled back 
away from us. 

Second, we joined with Senator 
Murkowski, a Republican Senator 
from Alaska, in introducing legislation 
when we could not get this passed to 
say, let us sunset this reflagging, let us 
end it after 6 months and consider 
whether we should do something else. 
Let us look at what we are doing in 
this long-term policy. I hope that leg- 
islation will come up. I think it is es- 
sential that it does. 

Third, Mr. President, the reason I 
am taking this time this morning is we 
are blocked on every one of these and 
we are going into a congressional 
recess and I am concerned about at- 
tacks on our allies, attacks such as oc- 
curred at Mecca, attacks on our ships, 
the difficulties we have. I want the 
country united. 

We could not get it through before 
the recess, so yesterday, along with 
Senators Simon and Matsunaga and 
over 100 Members of the House, I 
joined as a plaintiff in a suit to seek 
judicial relief and enforcement of the 
requirements of the War Powers Act, 
saying it was triggered by this reflag- 
ging of vessels. In addition, that suit 
says that if that reflagging, which was 
based on national security interests, is 
not halted, then the reflagging of 
those ships, which was based on na- 
tional security powers, was illegal and 
that reflagging should not occur. 

There are clearly different points of 
emphasis in this situation, Mr. Presi- 
dent, as to which of the three should 
be used. Those of us who have at- 
tempted again and again to get this 
legislation up want to say we know we 
have failed and that some would pre- 
vent timely action— against either our 
forces in the gulf or our interests and 
those of our friends and allies— as they 
took action in Mecca last week. 

We have an obligation, Mr. Presi- 
dent, to address this issue — to forge a 
national policy to sustain our long- 
term interests in the region. I have 
consistently indicated that I would not 
have taken the action that the Presi- 
dent has, I would not have reflagged 
those Kuwaiti vessels or promised pro- 
tection to them; but the President has 
done this and our Nation has made a 
commitment. The question now is how 
we can protect our overextended mili- 
tary presence and whether we ought 
to expand or contract our total activi- 
ty in the gulf. 

Mr. President, the only way we are 
going to answer those questions, the 
only way we are going to generate 
public support for whatever policy we 
adopt, is to air the issue thoroughly, 
debate it fully and then vote on it. 

If, in the next few weeks, there is an 
escalation of action either in the gulf 
or against American interests else- 
where, some of us could say "I told 
you so." But, Mr. President, that is not 
what we want to say. 



What we want to say to our constitu- 
ents is that we knew what the risks 
were and we debated them and are 
prepared to respond. We cannot say 
that today. The President has taken 
an administrative action, not a nation- 
al action under the War Powers Reso- 
lution, and as a result we are creating 
a great risk without a clear view of the 
United States plan of action. 

We want to require the President to 
accept his obligation to consult with 
the Congress; we want to require the 
Congress to accept its obligation to ad- 
dress this issue; we want to use a 
mechanism specifically created to 
unify the country behind a well con- 
ceived, carefully implemented policy. 

Mr. President, we should use the 
War Powers Act to develop a rational 
and clearly defined set of goals and 
mechanisms which will help the 
United States protect our vital inter- 
ests in this region and throughout the 
world. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that an article from the Washing- 
ton Post of this date commenting on 
the lawsuit and on the delays in the 
escort of tankers be printed immedi- 
ately following my statement. 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

U.S. Delays Next Escort of Tankers 

PENTAGON WANTS TO STRENGTHEN NAVAL 
FORCES IN THE GULF 

(By Molly Moore and Edward Walsh) 

U.S. military officials have delayed for up 
to a week the escort of three more reflagged 
Kuwaiti oil tankers, until sophisticated 
minesweeping and other protective forces 
arrive in the Persian Gulf, Defense Depart- 
ment sources said yesterday. 

The forces are being sent following the 
mine damage to a reflagged tanker during 
the first convoy and because Iran has raised 
new threats of retaliation against the 
United States. Within the next several 
weeks there will be about 24 U.S. Navy war- 
ships and support vessels and more than 
15,000 U.S. military personnel in and around 
the gulf, the largest deployment since a 
naval task force challenged Libya's "line of 
death" in the Gulf of Sidra early last year. 

Meanwhile, more than 100 Democratic 
members of Congress are asking the U.S. 
District Court here to force President 
Reagan to invoke the War Powers Resolu- 
tion and allow Congress to decide whether 
U.S. warships should continue to escort Ku- 
waiti tankers that now fly the U.S. flag. The 
Persian Gulf has served as a major battle- 
ground in the 7-year-old war between Iran 
and Iraq. 

"This is exactly the sort of situation the 
War Powers Resolution was designed to deal 
with," said Rep. Mike Lowry (D-Wash.), one 
of the lawmakers behind the suit. "It is in- 
disputable that American forces in the Per- 
sian Gulf face imminent hostility and the 
situation is becoming more dangerous every 
day." 

The legal maneuver by the members of 
Congress follows a week of reports that new 
U.S. military forces are being sent to the 
Persian Gulf provide additional support to 
the controversial escorting operation. 



The second convoy of tankers and their 
American warship escorts originally had 
been sheduled to set out late this week. But 
the helicopter carrier that will transport 
eight Sea Stallion mine-hunting and sweep- 
ing helicopters to the gulf is not expected to 
leave the island of Diego Garcia in the 
Indian Ocean for its three- to four-day 
voyage to the gulf until today. Pentagon 
sources said. 

The sources said the Joint Chiefs of Staff 
decided formally on Wednesday to postpone 
the operation "to let equipment arrive" in 
the gulf. 

Adm. William J. Crowe Jr., chairman of 
the Joint Chiefs, and Defense Secretary 
Caspar W. Weinberger spent an hour with 
top congressional leaders yesterday in a 
closed-door Pentagon meeting to discuss the 
gulf operations. 

House Armed Services Committee Chair- 
man Les Aspin (D-Wis.), who has criticized 
the military as being short-sighted in the 
face of threats such as mines, said he left 
yesterday's session "feeling a little better." 

"The military is at least beginning to 
think in terms of what's the unusual," 
Aspin said. "I don't know if it's going to 
work." 

Secretary of State George P. Shultz 
denied reports yesterday that the reflagging 
of the three tankers was postponed because 
a high-level Iranian delegation was in 
Kuwait trying to persuade that country to 
abandon the operation. The report of the 
alleged diplomatic negotiations was pub- 
lished in the London Independent newspa- 
per yesterday. 

"I saw that report, and as far as I know, 
there's nothing to it," Shultz told reporters. 
"As far as our reflagging operation is con- 
cerned, it proceeds according to our sched- 
ule, and there hasn't been any particular 
delay in it." 

The newspaper said the Iranians had of- 
fered to stop attacking Kuwaiti shipping in- 
terests if the Kuwaitis would cancel the es- 
corting arrangements with the United 
States. Kuwait has been allied with Iran's 
opponent, Iraq. 

The suit being filed today by 104 Demo- 
cratic House members and three senators is 
aimed at forcing an end to the escorting op- 
eration unless Congress specifically author- 
izes its continuation or declares war on Iran. 
Officials participating in the suit conceded, 
however, that the administration was cer- 
tain to appeal an adverse ruling by the di- 
trict court, a process that could take 
months. 

Lowry, chairman of the Democratic Study 
Group, a research organization of mostly 
liberal House Democrats that coordinated 
preparation of the lawsuit, said those bring- 
ing the suit were "again hoping that this 
moves the administration to change the 
policy" in the Persian Gulf. 

Under the War Powers Resolution, the 
president is required to notify Congress 
when he has introduced U.S. forces into 
combat or situations where "imminent in- 
volvement in hostilities" is likely. The law 
requires the president to terminate such op- 
erations within 60 days of reporting to Con- 
gress unless Congress declares war, author- 
izes the operation or extends the 60-day 
deadline. 

If the court should rule that the War 
Powers Resolution does not apply to the 
Persian Gulf situation, the lawsuit asks that 
the reflagging of the Kuwaiti tankers be de- 
clared illegal. The suit charges that in re- 
flagging the tankers the Reagan administra- 
tion waived certain safety and inspection 



91-059 0-89-4 (Pt. 17) 



23116 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



provisions of U.S. maritime law that were 
meant to be bypassed only in conditions 
"amounting to a military emergency or a 
state of war." 

At the same time, the House Armed Serv- 
ice subcommittee on military personnel and 
compensation held its hearing on a bill that 
would force the Defense Department to pay 
bonuses to U.S. personnel who have served 
in the gulf since May 1. 

"To not pass this bill is to pretend like the 
Persian Gulf is more like Lake Michigan 
than it is a very troubled and dangerous 
international waters," said Rep. Patricia 
Schroeder (D-Colo.), who introduced the 
measure. "Danger pay is only $110 a month. 
It hardly compensates our brave sailors for 
the dangers they face patrolling the gulf." 

Pentagon officials told the subcommittee 
current law provides that field commanders 
decide whether their troops are in enough 
danger to warrant the special pay. Officials 
said that only the captain of the USS Stark, 
which suffered a missile attack by an Iraqi 
pilot May 17 that left 37 sailors dead, has 
ordered bonus compensation for his crew 
and officers in the Persian Gulf. 

When Shultz was asked by reporters yes- 
terday whether the reflagging could lead 
the United States deeper into the threat of 
war, he said, "I don't think there's any pros- 
pect at all that we'll be drawn into a shoot- 
ing war. . . . Our presence in the gulf is not 
provocative. We are there to deter acts of 
aggression against perfectly legitimate ship- 
ping by countries that are 
neutral. . . . Obviously if we are attacked, 
we will have to see what actions we'll take." 

Assistant Secretary of State Richard W. 
Murphy said that Iranian-instigated terror- 
ist attacks as a result of the Persian Gulf 
operations are a possibility and that the 
West should be "very much on the alert." 
Murphy made the remark in a television 
interview broadcast in Europe and Israel 
yesterday. 

Pentagon sources said yesterday that at 
least four U.S. warships would be involved 
in the second escorting operation. Sources 
also said the Bridgeton, damaged when it 
hit a mine during the first escort July 24, is 
scheduled to be escorted out of the gulf 
after the convoy of the three newly re- 
flagged ships is completed. 

Administration officials have said they are 
considering stronger restrictions on com- 
mercial trade with Iran. Total U.S. export 
to Iran was about $13 million in the first 
five months of this year. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Sanford). The Senator from Alaska. 



CENTENNIAL OF THE FOUNDING 
OF THE METLAKATLA INDIAN 
COMMUNITY 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, today 
marks a very special day in the history 
of Alaska as well as the history of 
Alaska Natives. Exactly 100 years ago 
the Metlakatla Indian community was 
founded in southeastern Alaska. 

This is a very interesting story of 
our own national heritage. 

On August 7, 1887, a group of Tsimp- 
shean families landed on the Annette 
Islands in southeastern Alaska. They 
migrated to Alaska from British Co- 
lumbia, Canada, to seek religious free- 
dom and a land base for their commu- 
nity. With the encouragement of the 
U.S. Government, the Tsimpsheans 



built a sawmill, a cannery, and a com- 
munity of homes, schools, and church- 
es. In the midst of unsurpassed natu- 
ral beauty, these pioneers carved a vil- 
lage out of the Alaska wilderness. 

On March 3, 1891, the U.S. Congress 
set apart the Annette Islands as a Fed- 
eral Indian reservation for the Metla- 
katla Indians. We had adopted them 
as American citizens. President Wood- 
row Wilson recognized the importance 
of the salmon industry to Metlakatla's 
economic livelihood, and in 1916 de- 
clared the water surrounding the An- 
nette Islands part of the reservation. 
The community continues to expand 
the fishing and timber industries 
which have been the basis of their 
thriving economy for decades. 

Today the Metlakatla Indian com- 
munity consists of members of many 
different Alaska Native groups, includ- 
ing the Tsimpshean, Haida, Tlingit, 
Athabascans, Aleuts, Yup'iks, and Inu- 
piat Natives. This rich cultural mix is 
invaluable to Alaska's social and edu- 
cational heritage. Metlakatla is known 
and respected throughout Alaska for 
its progressive attitude, yet here is a 
community that does not ignore its 
traditional her J ,, age— youth are still 
taught the languages, carvings, dance, 
and craftsmanship of their elders. 

The Metlakatla Indian community is 
a great source of pride for me and for 
all Alaskans. In this bicentennial year 
of the U.S. Constitution, recognition 
of their contribution to our diverse 
cultural heritage is especially appro- 
priate. The pioneers of the Annette Is- 
lands are reminders of our Constitu- 
tion's great history— their ingenuity 
and perseverance is a tribute to the 
American spirit. 

On July 8, 1923, shortly before his 
death, President Warren G. Harding 
visited the Metlakatla Indian commu- 
nity in the first stop of his tour of the 
territory of Alaska. In his speech to 
the community be said: 

It is a very great pleasure to greet you; it 
is a joy to hear your band and to hear you 
sing, and it is an inspiration to look into 
your faces. I am glad that we have such an 
island under the American flag; I am glad 
that you are part of this republic or ours 
and doing your share to develop it and make 
it better. To you as pioneers in this section I 
pay my tribute for bringing about such a 
softening and elevating influence in this 
great Northwest. 

Mr. President, I invite the people of 
Alaska and all citizens of the United 
States to join the community of Met- 
lakatla in the celebration of their 100- 
year anniversary, as we initiate the 
celebration of the 200th anniversary 
of our Constitution. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent to have printed in the Record the 
letter President Reagan has sent to 
the citizens of Metlakatla, AK. 

There being no objection, the letter 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record as follows: 



The White House, 
Washington, DC, June 23, 1987. 
Hon. Harris L. Atkinson, 
Mayor of Metlakatla, 
Metlakatla, AK. 

To the Citizens of Metlakatla, Alaska: I 
am pleased to send warm greetings for the 
centennial of Metlakatla. 

Each city and town of our great country is 
unique, but all are bound together in the 
love of these United States. We are fortu- 
nate to live in a nation of strong and proud 
communities where everyone has a chance 
for success and the blessings of liberty and 
freedom can be enjoyed by all, regardless of 
background. 

As you commemorate this anniversary, 
you have a splendid opportunity to renew 
your commitment to preserve the spirit 
which has forged America into a land of 
wonder. I am proud to join you in making 
such a commitment on this historic occasion 
for the people of Metlakatla. 

With hearty congratulations and best 
wishes for continued milestones, 

Ronald Reagan. 



ALASKA OIL 



Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I have 
in the past said that the North Slope 
of Alaska is America's "Persian Gulf." 
Recent events in the Persian Gulf re- 
quire that I clarify that remark. 

The North Slope is America's Per- 
sian Gulf in that it has the potential 
for discovery of many more super 
giant oil fields like Prudhoe Bay. 
Unlike the Persian Gulf, however, we 
do not have to risk the lives of our 
sailors to safeguard the flow of oil 
from the North Slope. Maintaining 
the flow of this domestic oil requires 
congressional, rather than military, 
support. 

The huge potential of the North 
Slope of Alaska and the Coastal Plain 
of ANWR merits and deserves, as a 
matter of national policy, the same at- 
tention that events in the Persian 
Gulf are now receiving. For the long 
term, the North Slope and the Coastal 
Plain are more vital to America's 
direct interests than reflagging Kuwai- 
ti tankers. 

Mr. President, in my view, it is time 
to reflag Prudhoe Bay's declining 
crude oil reserves by adding new dis- 
coveries from the Coastal Plain of 
ANWR, the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. The national need for these 
new reserves has been fully demon- 
strated. There are no significant issues 
of technology, environment or wildlife 
in exploration and production in the 
Coastal Plain. Twenty years of safe, 
clean, compatible operating experience 
on the North Slope speaks for itself. 

Mr. President, I want to share with 
the Senate an article by Mr. Tim 
Bradner from the July 2, 1987, issue of 
the Energy Daily. In particular, I 
would direct the attention of Members 
who will be visiting the North Slope 
and the Coastal Plain during the 
August recess to Mr. Bradner's article. 
This article concerns the oil and gas 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23117 



resources of the Coastal Plain study 
area of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. 

The article features the views of a 
prominent petroleum geologist, Mr. 
Tom Marshall, on the oil and gas po- 
tential of the 1.5 million acre Coastal 
Plain. Mr. Marshall served as the 
State petroleum geologist for the 
State of Alaska in the early 1960's. As 
State geologist, he played an instru- 
mental role in advising the State of 
Alaska to select, as part of its state- 
hood entitlement, the public lands on 
which Prudhoe Bay's 10 billion barrel 
oil reserves were subsequently discov- 
ered by ARCO in late 1967. 

Mr. Marshall makes a number of 
points in "The Energy Daily" article 
which I would like to call to the atten- 
tion of my colleagues: 

The natural gas potential of the Coastal 
Plain could double the amount of recover- 
able gas previously discovered on the North 
Slope; 

In the early 1960's, the Prudhoe Bay area 
was initially accorded a low priority because 
it was a "stratigraphic trap" that did not 
appear as interesting to geologists as other 
structures shown on seismic surveys; 

There are many stratigraphic trap struc- 
tures in the small 1.5 million acre Coastal 
Plain area as large or larger than Prudhoe 
Bay; 

Some of the Coastal Plain prospects iden- 
tified in the Coastal Plain have the geologic 
potential to contain many times the re- 
serves of Prudhoe Bay. 

I would like to read a few excerpts 
out of Mr. Bradner's article about Mr. 
Marshall, a highly respected, inde- 
pendent geologist, and his views of the 
magnitude of the oil and gas potential 
of the Coastal Plain of ANWR: 

Marshall is now an Anchorage-based geol- 
ogy consultant. He was retrained last spring 
by the National Wildlife Federation to ana- 
lyze the Interior Department's Section 1002 
geologic assessment of the Arctic refuge. 
Congress is now considering whether to 
open the 1.5 million-acre Coastal Plain in 
the far northern part of the refuge to oil ex- 
ploration. 

"The sheer density of prospects per 
square mile make this [coastal plain] area 
one with the greatest potential for major 
discoveries in the country." Marshall says. 
The region has more and lr.rger potential 
structures than any other part of the North 
Slope, including the Prudhoe Bay area, he 
feels. 

Marshall thinks the gas potential of 
ANWR could almost double the amount of 
recoverable gas known on the North Slope, 
when combined with reserves already dis- 
covered at Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomp- 
son. 

"Although I commend the authors of the 
(1002 report assessment) for their cautious 
approach," Marshall says, "the fact remains 
that most of the oil on the North Slopes lies 
in traps which are located where they are 
because of truncations, pinch-outs or other 
stratigraphic mechanisms and I believe this 
should carry weight in the economic consid- 
erations." 

For example, Prudhoe Bay itself is partly 
a stratigraphic trap and for that reason was 
given a lower priority in the early days of 
North Slope exploration than other struc- 



tural formations because these showed up 
better on seismic surveys. It was only after 
drilling— and reinterpretation of the seismic 
with the benefit of regional drilling data— 
that oil companies decided to drill at Prud- 
hoe Bay, he says. This is one reason why it's 
so important to drill in ANWR, Marshall 
argues. 

The largest prospect is identified as No. 
18, covering 226,822 acres, an area 27 by 15 
miles. The second largest is Prospect No. 19, 
which is located just to the southeast of No. 
18. This covers 129,587 acres and measures 
22 by 13 miles. By comparison, the Prudhoe 
Bay oil field is 13 by 26 miles. 

What is also significant about Prospects 
18 and 19, Marshall says, is their huge verti- 
cal closure, or the distance from the top of 
the geologic anticline to the bottom. In the 
case of Prospect 18, this closure is 10,000 
feet; with Prospect 19, it is 7,000 feet. By 
comparison, the main Prudhoe Bay Sadlero- 
chit formation has a 1,000-foot vertical clo- 
sure. When combined with the extent of 
these formations, an indication of the po- 
tential huge size of the geological trapping 
mechanisms emerge. If it all contained oil, it 
could be larger than Prudhoe. This isn't 
likely to be the case, Marshall says, since 
these are only indications of geological 
trends. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that Mr. Bradner's article be 
printed in the Record. I also ask unan- 
imous consent that Mr. Marshall's in- 
dependent consulting geologist report 
prepared for the National Wildlife 
Federation on the Coastal Plain's geol- 
ogy be printed in the Record following 
Mr. Bradner's article. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

[From the Energy Daily, July 2, 1987] 
A Veteran's Critique of ANWR— Geolo- 
gist Suggests ANWR's Gas Potential Is 

Double That of the North Slope 
(By Tim Bradner in Alaska) 

Anchorage, AK.— The petroleum geologist 
who prodded the young state of Alaska into 
selecting federal lands where the 10-billion- 
barrel Prudhoe Bay oilfield was eventually 
discovered now feels the Interior Depart- 
ment's assessment of the oil potential in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) 
will prove very conservative. 

Thomas Marshall was Alaska's state land 
selection officer, and later State Petroleum 
Geologist, in the early 1960s when he co- 
ordinated the state's selection of unexplored 
coastal acreage on Alaska's North Slope. 
Prudhoe Bay, Kuparuk, Lisburne, Endicott 
and the Milne Points fields— almost 11.7 bil- 
lion barrels of recoverable reserves— were 
eventually discovered on the acreage Mar- 
shall selected for Alaska. 

Marshall is now an Anchorage-based geol- 
ogy consultant. He was retained last spring 
by the National Wildlife Federation to ana- 
lyze the Interior Department's Section 1002 
geologic assessment of the Arctic refuge. 
Congress is now considering whether to 
open the 1.5 million-acre coastal plain in the 
far northern part of the refuge to oil explo- 
ration. 

Marshall's critique, which may be the 
only independent assessment of the U.S. 
Geological Survey's ANWR report, focused 
on three aspects of Interior's analysis: that 
gas was not considered in the department's 
assessment of recoverable reserves; that the 
likely presence of stratigraphic traps, in ad- 



dition to structural formations, was not con- 
sidered; and that potential of only the 
deeper Ellesmerian-age rocks, and not the 
detached younger Mesozoic and Tertiary 
rocks, were considered by USGS. 

Marshall points out that many oil and gas 
fields have been found in similar Mesozoic 
and Tertiary geology in the Rocky Moun- 
tain over-thrust belt. He also says that ex- 
ploration on the North Slope has so far 
been unsuccessful in rocks of these ages, 
which is probably one reason for caution on 
the part of USGS authors when making 
their Section 1002 assessment. There have 
been oil shows— although not commercial — 
in rocks of that age group at Point Thomp- 
son just across ANWR's western boundary. 
Perhaps another reason for USGS's con- 
servative approach was the highly complex 
nature of the Mesozoic and Tertiary rocks 
in ANWR, which made it difficult for the 
seismic work conducted in the refuge to spot 
potential traps. 

"The sheer density of prospects per 
square mile make this [coastal plain] area 
one with the greatest potential for major 
discoveries in the country," Marshall says. 
The region has more and larger potential 
structures than any other part of the North 
Slope, including the Prudhoe Bay area, he 
feels. 

Marshall thinks the gas potential of 
ANWR could almost double the amount of 
recoverable gas known on the North Slope, 
when combined with reserves already dis- 
covered at Prudhoe Bay and Point Thomp- 
son. Interior did not include gas in calculat- 
ing ANWR's recoverable petroleum reserves 
because North Slope gas is uneconomical 
under current market conditions. But things 
may be different by the late 1990s when any 
ANWR discoveries would be developed, Mar- 
shall believes. 

"There's a good possibility that higher oil 
prices expected by the end of this century 
will result in a chance that large quantities 
of gas which may be found in the 1002 area 
could be marketed," he says. 

Interior did include gas in its estimate of 
in-place reserves. To derive an estimate of 
recoverable gas, Marshall took Interior's 
published estimate of 31.3 trillion cubic feet 
in-place reserves and applied a 75 percent 
recovery factor (which he says is standard 
for gas) to arrive at an estimate of 23 tril- 
lion cubic feet of recoverable gas in the 
ANWR 1002 study area. This is "nearly as 
much as the reserves of 25 trillion cubic feet 
at Prudhoe Bay," Marshall exclaims. "To- 
gether with 5 trillion cubic feet of gas re- 
serves at Point Thompson, North Slope gas 
reserves could exceed 50 trillion cubic feet." 

Marshall thinks stratigraphic traps should 
be given some consideration in ANWR geo- 
logic assessments, but he recognizes that 
USGS took a cautious approach and based 
its estimates only on structural prospects 
that could be clearly identified on the seis- 
mic work that has been done. Stratigraphic- 
type traps are much more difficult to 
define, given the limited amount of seismic 
work done in ANWR, says the veteran geol- 
ogist. 

"Although I commend the authors of the 
(1002 report assessment) for their cautious 
approach," Marshall says, "the fact remains 
that most of the oil on the North Slope lies 
in traps which are located where they are 
because of truncations, pinch-outs or other 
stratigraphic mechanisms and I believe this 
should carry weight in the economic consid- 
erations." 

For example, Prudhoe Bay itself is partly 
a stratigraphic trap and for that reason was 



23118 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



given a lower priority in the early days of 
North Slope exploration than other struc- 
tural formations because these showed up 
better on seismic surveys. It was only after 
drilling — and reinterpretation of the seismic 
with the benefit of regional drilling data— 
that oil companies decided to drill at Prud- 
hoe Bay, he says. This is one reason why it's 
so important to drill in ANWR, Marshall 
argues. 

The USGS geologic assessments, conduct- 
ed as part of the 1002 study, have identified 
seven major geologic "plays" in different 
parts of the refuge's coastal plain. Within 
these, there are 26 major prospects, each a 
major target for drilling. Seismic and geo- 
logic studies have identified two very large 
structures which could contain oil in quanti- 
ties similar to Prudhoe Bay in the north- 
eastern part of the coastal plain, east of the 
Inupiat Eskimo village of Kaktovik. 

The largest prospect is identified as No. 
18, covering 226,822 acres, an area 27 by 15 
miles. It extends out of the 1002 study area 
into lands now owned by Arctic Slope Re- 
gional Corporation (the native development 
corporation headquartered in the city of 
Barrow) and offshore into submerged lands 
owned by the state of Alaska. The second 
largest is Prospect No. 19, which is located 
just to the southeast of No. 18. This covers 
129,587 acres and measures 22 by 13 miles. 
By comparison, the Prudhoe Bay oilfield is 
13 by 26 miles. 

What is also significant about Prospects 
18 and 19, Marshall says, is their huge verti- 
cal closure, or the distance from the top of 
the geologic anticline to the bottom. In the 
case of Prospect 18, this closure is 10,000 
feet; with Prospect 19, it is 7,000 feet. By 
comparison, the main Prudhoe Bay Sadlero- 
chit formation has a 1,000-foot vertical clo- 
sure. When combined with the extent of 
these formations, an indication of the po- 
tential huge size of the geologic trapping 
mechanisms emerge. If it all contained oil, it 
could be larger than Prudhoe. That isn't 
likely to be the case, Marshall says, since 
these are only indications of geological 
trends. 

Marshall stresses that the uncertainties in 
ANWR are many: "the key question is 
whether these two huge prospects contain 
Ellesmerian reservoir rocks which are so 
prolific at Prudhoe Bay." A close reading of 
Interior's published report raises a question 
about the presence of Ellesmerian rocks at 
one point, but in another seems to suggest a 
seismic interpretation "indicating a signifi- 
cant part of this thick sequence may be 
present." 

The next two largest prospects in ANWR 
could rival the East Texas field in size if 
they contain oil. Interior's 1002 report indi- 
cates. East Texas, with five billion barrels, 
was the largest North American discovery 
until Prudhoe. The better of these two pros- 
pects lies in the southeast part of the coast- 
al plain, in the area used intensively by the 
Porcupine caribou herd for calving. These 
are also judged by Interior to have Elles- 
merian rocks, Marshall points out. 

Another prospect is along the Beaufort 
Sea coast, in the north/central part of the 
1002 study area. Yet another is further west 
near the Marsh Creek anticline, a major 
geologic formation in ANWR that has in- 
trigued geolog ; -*s for years. 

Generally, 88 percent of the estimated re- 
coverable reserves are in the eastern part of 
the coastal plain, mainly because of the 
presence of several very large structures. 
Seismic studies indicate many smaller struc- 
tures in the western part of the study area. 



If a pipeline were built to connect the trans- 
Alaska pipeline at Prudhoe Bay with poten- 
tial super-giants in eastern regions of 
ANWR's coastal plain, the pipeline would 
traverse these areas, making smaller discov- 
eries economic. 

Report for National Wildlife Federation 

on 1002 Area Geology 

(By Thomas R. Marshall, Jr.) 

a. introduction 

This is an evaluation of the geological as- 
pects of the draft report of the Department 
of Interior's "Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, Alaska, Coastal Plain Resource As- 
sessment" dated November 1986. Herein- 
after this report will be referred to as the 
draft. It covers the so-called 1002 area of 
ANWR which consists of 1.55 million acres 
or about three-fourths of the total coastal 
plain of the refuge. Also included are re- 
quested comments on economic matters cov- 
ered in the draft which are closely related 
to geology and petroleum exploration. 

Some constraints on my report should be 
mentioned at the outset. The most perti- 
nent reference to the geological evaluation 
of the draft will not be available until 
August 1987. When published as Bulletin 
1778, it will contain 23 individual papers on 
the geological evaluation of the coastal 
plain area including three papers on reser- 
voir petrography and three or four papers 
on seismic methodology and interpretation 
used in the draft. It will be the Technical 
Appendix to the final report when it is sent 
to Congress. This bulletin is referenced as 
Griscom, S.B., on page 73 of the draft; how- 
ever, the editor is now changed to Bird, K.J. 
and Magoon, L.B. Without this comprehen- 
sive publication my evaluation becomes very 
dependent on the summary geological and 
geophysical information in Chapter III of 
the draft report. In the 1002 area the De- 
partment of the Interior controls all the re- 
leasable geological data gained from the 
government's five year data gathering pro- 
gram. The only deep stratigraphic test well 
in the 1002 area is Chevron USA Inc. KIC 
drilled to a depth of 15,161 feet near the vil- 
lage of Kaktovik in the north eastern part 
of the 1002 area. This well was completed 
on April 15, 1986 and all data except the lo- 
cation, total depth and completion date are 
protected by the State of Alaska's confiden- 
tiality statute. Most of the Chapter III ref- 
erences, regional geology, released well data 
from wells on the western margin of the 
1002 area and older (1980) U.S.G.S. publica- 
tions which include some reconnaissance 
gravity surveys have been obtained. An un- 
published BLM report on economics of oil 
and gas production from ANWR was also 
obtained. 

B. COMMENTS ON CHAPTER III OF THE DRAFT 

1. Natural gas was not included in the cal- 
culation of economically recoverable re- 
sources. 

The draft states on page 50 that "Gas re- 
sources are unlikely to be economic at any 
point in the time period being considered." 

I believe that if commercial oil and gas re- 
serves are found in the 1002 area they will 
not be depleted before the year 2030, per- 
haps considerably longer if heavy oil or tar 
deposits are found. The principal reference 
on ANWR economics (Young, J.S., 1986, p. 
11) quotes the American Gas Association as 
expecting Alaska gas exports to the lower 48 
states of .7 to 1.2 TCF/yr by the year 2000 
and Chevron expects exports by early in the 
next century. A recent Oil and Gas Journal 
article of January 5, 1986, p. 22, by the 



President of Occidental Petroleum, Ray R. 
Irani, predicts $60.00/bbl oil by the year 
2000. The significance of the oil price to the 
price of gas is that high oil prices elevate 
gas prices and vice-versa because of the 
mutual market substitution. Serious studies 
by the Arctic Gas Pipeline Consortium were 
undertaken in the 70's with oil prices in the 
teens. $60 oil would certainly elevate gas 
prices in the year 2000, perhaps to 300% of 
today's prices. Using the conditional mean 
estimate in the draft of 31.3 TCP of gas in 
place in the 1002 area and a conservative 
75% gas recovery factor, the gas reserves 
could be over 23 TCF, nearly as much as the 
reserves of 25 TCF at Prudhoe Bay. Togeth- 
er with 5 TCF of gas reserves at Pt. Thomp- 
son, North Slope gas reserves would exceed 
50 TCF. 

Just after the draft was completed, Yukon 
Pacific Corporation finalized its environ- 
mental impact statement permit for the 
proposed 800-mile gas line from the North 
Slope to Valdez, Alaska, where a liquefica- 
tion plant would be built. Yukon Pacific ex- 
pects a Pacific Rim "market window" to 
open in the early 1990's, about the time 
their project would be completed. 

In my opinion there is a good possibility 
that the higher oil prices expected by the 
end of this century will result in a moderate 
chance that large quantities of gas which 
may be found in the 1002 area could be mar- 
keted at a profit. 

2. Stratigraphic Traps not considered as 
prospects. See page 51, paragraph 4. 

Although the draft considers oil and gas 
contained in stratigraphic and structural 
traps in the "in place" estimates, only struc- 
tural prospects were considered in the esti- 
mation of recoverable resources. Strangely, 
Fig. 111-2 on page 50 of the draft-directly 
compares the conditional recoverable oil re- 
sources of the eight largest 1002 area pros- 
pects (all structural) with the original re- 
serves of five U.S. oil fields. Of the three 
largest fields, two are combination strati- 
graphic-structure traps and one (East 
Texas) is purely a stratigraphic trap. 

Although I commend the authors of the 
draft for their cautious approach the fact 
remains that most of the oil on the North 
Slope lies in traps which are located where 
they are because of truncations, pinch-outs 
or other stratigraphic mechanisms and I be- 
lieve this should carry weight in the eco- 
nomic considerations. 

3. No prospects defined in detached Meso- 
zoic and Tertiary Rocks. See Page 58, last 
paragraph. 

No prospects were adequately resolved 
within the detached (by fault planes) and 
highly deformed Mesozoic and Tertiary 
rocks because of the difficulties of mapping 
them with existing seismic data. Nonethe- 
less in areas of comparable structural geolo- 
gy, many oil, gas, and gas condensate fields 
have been found in Rocky Mountain area 
overthrust belts as a result of sub-surface 
information gained from the drilling of 
wells combined with detailed seismic sur- 
veys. In fairness to the authors of the draft 
it must be noted that oil and gas explora- 
tion results in a similar regional structure 
area of the North Slope have not been suc- 
cessful. 

C. OTHER REQUESTS 

1. Compare geological favorability of the 
three localities having typical prospect 
characteristics shown on page 7 of the draft. 

These three localities contain all the de- 
fined structures except No. 15 which is very 
deep (22,500 feet), has limited vertical clo- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23119 



sure, and lies mostly (75%) outside the 1002 
area. Individual prospect numbers are 
shown on page 61 and the area they repre- 
sent is shown on page 49. 

Prospect locality No. 1. (Marsh Creek area 
including 16 defined prospects). Well ex- 
pressed in surface rocks, the Marsh Creek 
anticline has been known for many years 
and with its subsurface extensions it may be 
40 miles long. Oil stained sandstone in the 
Canning Formation is found on the Katak- 
turuk River on the north flank of this huge 
anticline. Significant amounts of gas have 
been tested from Ellesmerian rocks at the 
Kavik well lying outside the 1002 area to 
the southwest of Marsh Creek anticline. 

With direct evidence of both gas and oil 
nearby, both surface and seismic closure are 
excellent exposures of the Ellesmerian 
rocks in the Sadlerochit Mountains immedi- 
ately to the south, all defined prospects in 
locality 1 are good with prospect number 5 
probably being the best. 

Prospect locality No. 2 (Upper Jago River 
area). This area lies on the Beaufort Sea in 
the northeastern part of the 1002 area and 
includes defined prospects 18, 19, 23, and 26. 
This prospect locality is distinguished by 
the two largest prospects both from the 
standpoint of area and vertical structural 
closure. For comparison, the area of the 
Prudhoe Bay oil field, the continent's larg- 
est, is 13 x 26 miles. Prospect No. 18 is 15 x 
27 miles and prospect No. 19 is 13 x 22 miles. 
Vertical structural closure in the main pro- 
ducing formation of Prudhoe Bay is ap- 
proximately 1000 feet. Vertical closure at 
prospect No. 18, is greater than 10,000 feet 
and No. 19 is greater than 7000 feet. Of 
course we are comparing -hard subsurface 
data at Prudhoe Bay with speculative seis- 
mic interpretations on prospect 18 and 19. 
However prospect 18 received the greatest 
number of seismic traverses (16) and pros- 
pect 19 was tied for the second largest 
number (10). 

An oil seep at Manning Point lies within 
the limits of prospect No. 18 and another 
seep at Angun Point lies about five miles 
east of prospect 19. An anticline expressed 
in the surface rocks adds interest to the pos- 
sibility of heavy oil deposits at shallow 
depths. The key question here is whether or 
not these two huge prospects contain the 
Ellesmerian reservoir rocks which are so 
prolific at Prudhoe Bay. Fig. 111-6 indicates 
the questionable presence of Ellesmerian 
rocks but a statement on Page 54 suggests 
that a seismic interpretation indicates a sig- 
nificant part of this thick sequence may be 
present in the eastern part of the 1002 area, 
i.e., in prospect locality #2. 

The draft report authors consider defined 
prospect No. 19 to contain Ellesmerian rocks 
but no correlation can be made with pros- 
pect # 20 because only one east-west seismic 
line in this area is provided. 

Because of the great distances to well con- 
trol good information on the maturity of 
possible source rocks in the lower part of 
the sedimentary section is very speculative. 
The surface oil seeps may be from very 
much younger, near surface sources. 

Prospect locality No. 3 (lower Jago River 
area). This area lies in the extreme south- 
eastern part of the 1002 area and includes 
defined prospects 20, 21, 22 and 24. This lo- 
cality is more remote from the Beaufort Sea 
coast. It contains two large prospects, both 
of which are considered to contain Ellesmer- 
ian sediments. Defined prospect 20 is some- 
what larger than prospect 21 but a small 
east-west anticline is expressed in the Broo- 
kian surface rocks which may help localize 
heavy oil deposits if they exist. 



2. Comments on additional oil and gas ex- 
ploration. 

Although the seismic work done in the 
1002 area is of a reconnaissance nature and 
certainly much more would be done to 
locate a well seeking oil and gas production, 
still the information on regional structional 
wildlife refuge has been enhanced signifi- 
cantly by the seismic program. The real de- 
ficiency in information is the amount and 
quality of reservoir rocks and source rocks 
present. 

Chevron USA Inc. and partners have 
drilled a deep stratigraphic test on the coast 
of the Beaufort Sea about 16 miles east of 
Kaktovik on the extreme eastern end of the 
KIC lands. This well was drilled to a true 
vertical depth of 15,161 feet. It was located 
in Sec. 1, T 8N— R.36E, U.P.M. It was spud- 
ded on 2/17/85 and completed on 4/15/86. 
This well was in an excellent spot to test de- 
fined prospect No. 18, the largest structure 
found in the 1002 area. The data on this 
well is highly confidential since it was 
drilled by a private company on lands leased 
from a Native corporation. 

A stratigraphic test hole drilled between 
defined prospects No. 20 and 21 in the south 
Jago River area would provide critical reser- 
voir and source rock data in prospect locali- 
ty No. 3. A test hole drilled north of defined 
prospect No. 5 in the Marsh creek area 
would give the data on locality No. 1. Four 
locations are mentioned in the draft on page 
92. Of these, I believe that test hole No. 1 in 
the northwest area would be of the least im- 
portance because there is some well control 
near the northwest margin and the geology 
is uncomplicated compared to the iest of 
the 1002 area. One at these suggested loca- 
tions (No. 3) is basically where the Chevron 
KIC strat hole was drilled. It is my under- 
standing that shallow test holes were drilled 
with very portable equipment in several 
areas. This information is not presently 
available but will be included in the Techni- 
cal Appendix to the draft when it is sent to 
Congress. This shallow data is probably in- 
tended to gain source rock information in 
the many areas covered by thin surficial 
sediments of recent age. 

There are many areas where information 
from deep stratigraphic test holes would be 
very valuable. It is very expensive to move a 
large drilling rig to remote sites and drill a 
deep well. Off-structure tests would provide 
less information than a well drilled for oil 
and gas. The latter would provide the most 
critical information of all — whether or not 
the suspected trap is effective in containing 
the hydrocarbons and whether the migra- 
tion of hydrocarbons from source rocks took 
place before or after the trap was formed. 

CONCLUSION 

The geological work done in the 1002 area 
summarized in the draft and available refer- 
ences meets high scientific standards. The 
overall tenor of Chapter III is, in my opin- 
ion, conservative in regard to the oil and gas 
exploration possibilities. However, the track 
record of essentially the same geological 
team was excellent when the realities of de- 
velopment in NPR-A are compared to their 
initial work before development. 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I am 
indebted to the Chair for his indul- 
gence and to the majority leader for 
extending the time so I may make 
these remarks. 

I yield the floor. 



THE ADMINISTRATION'S 
AGRICULTURAL PROPOSAL I 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the 
Reagan administration has recently 
presented a bold proposal in the new 
round of GATT talks. 

The proposal envisions sweeping re- 
forms in agriculture! 

It calls for the elimination of all ag- 
ricultural export subsidies, production 
subsidies, and import barriers world- 
wide. 

It calls for all of these barriers to be 
phased out over the next 10 years by 
all GATT members. The only form of 
farm support permissible would be 
direct income supports not linked to 
production. 

The proposal, if fully implemented, 
would establish a free market in agri- 
culture—now the most heavily protect- 
ed sector of the world economy. 

Free trade is an admirable goal; we 
all agree about that. And the opportu- 
nity exists for reaching a significant 
international agreement on wheat, 
feed grains, soybeans, and perhaps a 
few other comrr.odities during the cur- 
rent round of GATT negotiations. 

But I think the administration is 
shooting too high, and as a result will 
fall far short of a satisfactory agree- 
ment on agricultural trade. 

I fear that by shooting for the moon, 
the administration may never get off 
the ground. 

The emerging consensus for reform 
will be shattered if we try to push too 
far, too fast. We must take a more 
pragmatic approach to liberalizing ag- 
ricultural trade. 

I will make two statements this week 
that outline my position on this pro- 
posal and urge the administration to 
take a more pragmatic approach to 
the agricultural trade talks. 

Today, I will focus on the reasons 
why the administration proposal is not 
practical. 

An agricultural trade agreement ef- 
fects many groups, consumers and tax- 
payers alike. However, the success of 
any agreement depends on what it 
does for farmers. 

For farmers in various countries 
around the world and particularly in 
our country, the administration's pro- 
posal is a mixed bag. 

Farmers in Australia, Argentina, and 
many developing nations would be 
able to take advantage of their low 
production costs to greatly increase 
ther export sales. 

On the other hand, farmers from 
European Economic Community 
member nations and Japan would face 
a more difficult situation. They 
depend much more on government 
supports. If these supports were elimi- 
nated, most farmers from these coun- 
tries would probably be driven out of 
business. EEC dairy, sugar, and beef 
producers would be particularly hard 
hit. 



23120 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



The EEC could very rapidly lose 30 
to 50 percent of its agricultural sector 
under the administration proposal. 
This could leave as many as 3 million 
jobless farmers and farm workers in 
the EEC. 

Japan could actually lose almost its 
entire agricultural sector! 

None of the three major agricultural 
commodities produced in Japan— rice, 
beef, and citrus fruits— is competitive 
in world markets today. 

Further, if government farm price 
supports are removed, the value of 
Japanese farmland will plummet. 
Land-hungry Japanese city dwellers 
would quickly step in and develop the 
farmland for living space. 

In America farmers will face mixed 
prospects under the administration 
plan. 

Farmers that produce wheat, feed 
grains, or soybeans are likely to bene- 
fit. U.S. farmers are able to produce 
these commodities at a relatively low 
cost. 

New markets will be opened for 
these commodities around the world, 
and some of the major competitors 
will be removed. 

More than likely, exports of these 
commodities will increase consider- 
ably. 

Since these three commodities are 
responsible for about 50 percent of 
U.S. agricultural exports and 67 per- 
cent of the cost of the U.S. farm pro- 
gram, this would be a very positive 
feature of the administration proposal 
from the U.S. perspective. 

Yet farmers that produce, rice, 
cotton, and cattle will face an uncer- 
tain future. 

The United States is now a major ex- 
porter of rice and cotton, but produc- 
tion of these commodities is highly 
subsidized through a marketing loan 
program. In a complete free market, 
U.S. rice and cotton producers would 
face stiff competition from developing 
nations. 

United States cattlemen face the 
prospect of increasing beef exports to 
markets like Japan under the adminis- 
tration proposal. Unfortunately, they 
also face increased competition from 
imports of lower quality beef from 
Australia and New Zealand. 

U.S. sugar and dairy producers are 
almost certain to be harmed under the 
administration proposal. Both of these 
commodities are heavily subsidized 
and heavily protected. 

The U.S. price for sugar, for in- 
stance, is today approximately four 
times the world market price. 

It is unlikely that there would be 
many independent dairymen or sugar 
producers if the administration pro- 
posal became reality. 

Finally, the administration's propos- 
al has frightened many farmers and 
citizens of rural areas by defining cer- 
tain vital rural programs— such as the 



Agricultural Extension Service and 
the Farm Credit System— as subsidies. 

These programs have no measurable 
impact upon world trade; none of our 
trading partners has ever complained 
about them. Yet, they do provide vital 
services to rural areas and to farmers. 

It would make no sense to negotiate 
an end to these important programs. 

As I said at the outset, all major ex- 
porting nations have an economic in- 
terest in ending the subsidy war on 
wheat, feed grains, soybeans, and per- 
haps a few other commodities. 

But many nations, including the 
United States, would face severe eco- 
nomic disruptions as many farmers are 
thrown out of work if other agricultur- 
al commodities and all agricultural 
programs are included in the scope of 
the agreement. 

The proposal could have such tre- 
mendous negative effect upon many 
rural areas that many groups who 
would otherwise be natural supporters 
of such a free trade agreement are 
being radicalized against it. 

The reaction of the U.S. farm com- 
munity is typical. Not a single major 
farm group has yet endorsed the ad- 
ministration proposal. 

One major farm group ran a head- 
line on its monthly publication that 
read "U.S. Farmers Sold Out in the 
GATT." 

I understand that the reaction of 
farmers in Canada has been quite 
similar. 

In order to conclude a successful 
agreement, we need to incorporate 
these farm groups in the negotiating 
process. They must be included. 

By proposing a radical agreement 
that threatens to have a severe nega- 
tive inpact on rural areas, the adminis- 
tration is frightening off the very 
groups that could form a strong politi- 
cal basis of support for an internation- 
al trade agreement. 

Later on, I plan to outline a proposal 
that I believe has a greater potential 
for forming the basis of an interna- 
tional agreement on agriculture. 



JAPANESE SQUID FLEETS 

Mr. STEVENS. Mr. President, I 
would like to bring to the attention of 
the Senate a series of egregious viola- 
tions of the regulations governing the 
interception of North American-origin 
salmon on the high seas. 

The International Convention for 
the High Seas Fisheries of the North 
Pacific Ocean sets forth time and area 
restrictions on the high seas fishing 
fleets of the member nations. Japan, 
Canada, and the United States are 
members of the convention, but only 
the Japanese fish in those internation- 
al waters. 

The Japanese land-based squid and 
other driftnet fleets include over 1,500 
vessels. These vessels set close to 1 mil- 
lion miles of net annually. The nets 



are capable of entangling any species 
of fish, marine mammals, or sea birds 
which come into contact with them. 
The convention regulations attempt to 
minimize the impact on North Ameri- 
can-origin salmon, and also serve to 
provide some protection for sea birds 
and marine mammals as well. The do- 
mestic laws of Japan also nominally 
prohibit certain fishing activity in con- 
junction with the convention restric- 
tions. The problem is that those re- 
strictions are not enforced. Our fisher- 
men and the salmon stocks suffer the 
consequences. 

For the last decade, we have had 
countless reports of violations of the 
convention regulations by the Japa- 
nese fleets. The most recent sightings 
occurred between July 20 and July 28. 
Coast Guard surveillance aircraft spot- 
ted a total of 18 Japanese vessels fish- 
ing in prohibited areas known to con- 
tain salmon. Some of these vessels had 
their official registration numbers con- 
cealed to avoid identification. 

These repeated violations have 
shaken my faith in the ability of the 
Government of Japan to enforce both 
domestic and international law against 
its fishermen. The salmon fishery is 
too important to the State of Alaska 
and the Pacific Northwest to ignore 
these blatant violations of the law. I 
am serving notice that the intercep- 
tion of salmon will become an issue in 
every legislative initiative before the 
Senate which relates to Japan. 



NINETEENTH ANNIVERSARY OF 
SOVIET INVASION OF CZECHO- 
SLOVAKIA 

Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, 
this coming August 21 will mark the 
19th anniversary of the Soviet inva- 
sion of Czechoslovakia. I wanted to 
take a few minutes to reflect upon 
that event and its aftermath. 

When I was growing up, I always 
thought of Czechoslovakia as being a 
nation of democratic ideals. It was one 
of the finest nations in Europe, with 
the greatest leaders, such as Thomas 
Masaryk and Dr. Edward Benes. I re- 
spected those leaders, and I held 
Czechoslovakia in the highest esteem. 
The Russian invasion changed all 
that. 

In August 1968, approximately 
500,000 Soviet and Warsaw Pact troops 
rolled into Prague as the Czechoslovak 
troops were ordered to stand aside. Al- 
though there were few casualties, the 
results of the invasion were tragic 
nonetheless. 

When the Soviets invaded and took 
control, they exerted extreme political 
pressures and excluded tens of thou- 
sands of people from daily life in 
Czechoslovakia. The Czechoslovakia 
people were denied their basic human 
rights, and their cultural, political, 
and other freedoms were suppressed. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23121 



In effect, the invasion put Czechoslo- 
vakia under the rigid, oppressive rule 
of the Soviet Government. 

Since then, approximately 145,000 
Czechoslovaks have left their home- 
land, with about 25,000 of them set- 
tling in the United States. They fled 
repression in their native Czechoslova- 
kia in order to find a safer and more 
secure life elsewhere. Those who have 
stayed in Czechoslovakia now face 
some 80,000 Soviet troops, permanent- 
ly stationed there, imposing the politi- 
cies of the Soviet controlled govern- 
ment. 

I want to express my solidarity with 
all Czechoslovaks who want to be free. 
I join with Americans of Czechoslovak 
descent— 1.9 million of them and at 
least 120,000 in the State of Ohio— 
who want to be reunited with their 
brothers, sisters, parents, and cousins 
in Czechoslovakia. I pledge my sup- 
port to them in their efforts, and I re- 
dedicate myself to the cause of help- 
ing any and all Czechoslovaks who 
seek freedom. I hope that one day 
Czechoslovakia will become a truly 
representative democracy, and I will 
do whatever I can to make that dream 
come true. 



ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: THE 
ULTIMATE CENTRAL AMERICA 
SOLUTION 

Mr. SANFORD. Mr. President, we 
all can hope that President Reagan's 
proposals for negotiated settlement in 
Central America will be the beginning 
of peaceful solutions in that troubled 
area. 

Peace should be our first objective. 

But an end to hostilities is only a 
first step. 

Economic conditions are the root of 
the problem. Whether or not the ad- 
ministration's new proposals are ac- 
cepted, they will not eliminate Central 
America's poverty, poor health, unem- 
ployment, and despair. These are the 
distortions that have enticed the 
region into conflict. They should be 
the long-range targets of United 
States' efforts. 

We have the ability to improve those 
conditions and it is a moral and strate- 
gic imperative that we commit our- 
selves to get on with the best possible 
development program. 

There have been repeated attempts 
at development in the past, dating all 
the way back to Franklin Roosevelt's 
"Good Neighbor" policy. All these 
plans, however well intended, have 
had one major flaw. They have not 
taken into account fully the aspira- 
tions of the Central Americans them- 
selves. Without their participation, 
our efforts at development have 
smacked of paternalism. Who better 
knows what is desirable and what is 
possible than the people who live in 
the area? 



A major new effort is already under- 
way to produce precisely the kind of 
blueprint that is needed. Extraordi- 
nary talent from Central America, the 
United States and other countries is 
being enlisted to take part. 

Fifteen to 20 leading citizens from 
the five Central American countries 
will soon be announced as members of 
the program's International Commis- 
sion for the Development of Central 
America. Eight U.S. citizens have al- 
ready agreed to serve. They are Law- 
rence Eagleburger, former Deputy 
Under Secretary of State; Arthur 
Levitt, Jr., chairman and chief execu- 
tive officer of the American Stock Ex- 
change; Viron Vaky, former Assistant 
Secretary of State; Richard Feinberg, 
vice president of Overseas Develop- 
ment Council; Albert Fishlow, profes- 
sor, Department of Economics of the 
University of California in Berkeley; 
Sol Linowitz, former ambassador to 
the U.S. Mission to the Organization 
of American States; William M. Dyal, 
Jr., president of St. John's College; 
and John T. Joyce, president of Brick- 
layers and Trowel International Pen- 
sion Fund. 

The program is unique in several re- 
spects. No government funding is re- 
quired. Support will be provided by 
foundations in this and other coun- 
tries. All contemporary techniques of 
economic planning will be employed in 
the most objective manner. Efforts of 
the past will be examined to determine 
what has worked and what has not 
and why. 

I have great confidence in this bold 
new economic initiative. It will give us 
and the Central American nations a 
perspective that has not existed. And 
it will provide a new vision of Central 
America's future. 

Whether or not the administration's 
new proposals for peace succeed, we 
will have to have a national commit- 
ment to help Central America find its 
way into the productive and proud re- 
gions of the world. That is the only 
way to prevent future conflict but it is 
more than that. Democracy is spread- 
ing in Central America. Four of the re- 
gion's countries are governed by demo- 
cratic regimes, some of them fragile. 
So the opportunity exists for us to 
offer encouragement to open and eco- 
nomically healthy societies, of their 
own making, and that should be the 
primary objective in our relationship. 



JEWEL OF THE OLD WEST 

Mr. DASCHLE. Mr. President, in the 
heart of the Old West, in Rapid City, 
SD, there stands the Alex Johnson, an 
11 -story hotel that has captured the 
hearts of tourists and townspeople 
alike. The hotel was built 60 years ago 
under the supervision of its initial 
owner, Alex Carlton Johnson. Artist 
Carlos De Lopez oversaw the interior 
design and construction of this land- 



mark hotel. Edward Oldefest, a Chica- 
go architect, was employed to add a 
European look to the hotel. 

The interior of the hotel projects 
the image of the Old West. The busts 
of eight Indian chiefs adorn the pillars 
of the lobby. Buffalo headmounts, 
carved railings, ceiling murals, and a 
large fieldstone fireplace provide a 
rustic, yet cultured, environment. 

Over the years there have been sev- 
eral owners. Each one has been careful 
to preserve the historic beauty of the 
hotel. 

Tom Didier is the current caretaker 
of the Alex Johnson. Tom does not 
feel that he owns the hotel, but rather 
that he is one of the many devoted 
caretakers that have been charmed by 
the Alex Johnson's charisma. 

The Alex Johnson has enjoyed the 
company of many famous people, in- 
cluding Calvin Coolidge, Franklin Roo- 
sevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald 
Ford, Ronald Reagan, Clark Gable, 
and Cary Grant. Even one of our leg- 
endary "singing cowboys," Gene 
Autry, has enjoyed the hospitality of 
the Alex Johnson. 

When I am in the "Black Hills," the 
Alex Johnson is often my home. This 
establishment is a tribute to the pio- 
neer spirit and South Dakota hospital- 
ity. It is everything that Mr. Johnson 
envisioned, and more. 

South Dakota magazine recently 
published a wonderful article about 
the Alex Johnson. , I ask unanimous 
consent that this article be printed in 
the Record so that my colleagues may 
appreciate the historic value of South 
Dakota's most famous hotel. 

I invite my colleagues and all Ameri- 
cans to come to South Dakota and dis- 
cover the Alex Johnson along with the 
many other attractions of our beauti- 
ful State. 

There being no objection, the article 
was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

A Lady Called Alex 
(By Bernie Hunhoff ) 

Tom Didier fooled around and fell in love. 
With a hotel. And not just any hotel. The 
object of this undivided attention is the 
Alex Johnson, an 11-story dame that was 
built 60 years ago in the heart of Rapid 
City. 

Forgive her for that masculine name. It 
comes from the man who dreamed her up, 
Alex Carlton Johnson. Didier knows that 
the hotel has had many men in her life 
before him. He simply looked on the old girl 
as an investment. But as he came to know 
the hotel and her history, a romance devel- 
oped. Now he is "head over heels" involved 
and in love with the place and he couldn't 
be happier. 

Didier was raised in Rapid City. His father 
owned the Tip Top Motel and as a boy, he 
remembers coming down to "the Alex" to 
"bother" the long time cook, Julio Ramos. 
"We didn't pay much attention to the hotel, 
it was just an old place downtown that we'd 
hang around." 

How times changed. 



23122 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



Today "the Alex" is Didier's obsession. 
Single and just 31 years of age, he laments 
that it would be best, perhaps, if he had 
more time for a personal life. "But the hotel 
has a way of making you fall in love with it. 
Initially I was just investing in brick and 
mortar. The plan was to get in and get out 
quickly. But I fooled around and fell in 
love." 

He appreciates the historical ambiance of 
the hotel. "You become driven to give the 
old place life. It really does become quite a 
passion." 

"In a real sense, I don't feel I own this 
building, I feel all I am is a caretaker and 
the building will be here long after I'm 
gone. Maybe it will be my son's or daugh- 
ter's, if I ever have a son or daughter. But I 
feel a responsibility to downtown Rapid 
City and to western South Dakota and to 
the whole state to pass it on to the next 
generation in good condition." 

"I have a great deal of admiration for 
those who kept it before me," Didier noted. 
Despite a sometimes troubled financial his- 
tory, the Alex has never had to endure the 
disrepair and disgrace of some other historic 
hotels in South Dakota. 

Perhaps that stroke of good fortune is due 
to the fact that there has almost always 
been a man around who loved her dearly- 
beginning with her namesake, Alex Carlton 
Johnson. He was a Chicago and Northwest- 
ern Railroad official, nearing retirement 
age, when he fell in love with the Black 
Hills and its Indian and pioneer heritage. 
He felt the region cried for a grand hotel 
that would be a shrine to the Sioux Indian 
Nation and the West. It is uncertain what 
part Johnson played in developing the 
hotel. Some historical accounts say he per- 
suaded the railroad and local investors to 
take on the challenge. Others believe the 
railroad was not an active stockholder, how- 
ever the C&NW did have a ticket office in 
the Alex in its early years. 

Regardless, those who put up the money 
must have been impressed enough by John- 
son's participation that they named the 
showplace after him. He reportedly commis- 
sioned a nationally famous artist, Carlos De 
Lopez, to oversee the interior design and 
construction. Edward Oldefest, a Chicago 
architect, was enlisted to add a European 
loot to the exterior. His handiwork, which 
remains unchanged today, is the hotel's 
Alpine cap, reflecting Dakota's Germanic 
immigration. 

De Lopez' interior also is largely intact. 
The main feature is a gigantic fieldstone 
fireplace in the lobby. Eight carved busts of 
Indian chiefs uphold beams crossing the 
two-story tall ceiling. A hugh chandelier is 
formed of war lances and glazed tiles resem- 
bling Sioux designs and beadwork. Buffalo 
headmounts, carved railings along the bal- 
cony, ceiling murals, and a warm, inviting 
wood front desk provide a rugged. Old West 
charm that couldn't be duplicated today. 

Alex Johnson, the hotel's first suitor, re- 
tired from the C&NW in 1929 and lived at 
"the Alex" for most of the 1930s before 
moving to California, where he died in 1938. 

The hotel continued under local owner- 
ship until 1947, when it was sold to the 
Eppley Hotel Company. In 1956, it was sold 
to Sheraton Corporation and the name tem- 
porarily became Sheraton-Johnson. William 
Baron bought it from Sheraton in 1965 and 
changed the name back to Alex Johnson. 

John T. Vucurevich, a Black Hills banker, 
owned the hotel in the early 1970s and over- 
saw extensive remodeling and refurbishing. 
But as with all the owners, the basic archi- 



tecture and art of the old gal was not 
harmed. A group of Kansas and Colorado 
businessmen bought the hotel from Vucure- 
vich in April of 1973. 

There was an embarrassing period in 1977 
when the hotel was put up for auction at a 
Pennington County sheriff's sale because of 
debts totalling $1,674,085. Drover's National 
Bank of Chicago, the creditor, had the only 
bid. 

In 1979, a major, multi-million dollar ren- 
ovation probably saved Alex from becoming 
just one more rundown, downtown hotel 
with a past. Claire Wieseler became involved 
at that time, and he guided extensive resto- 
ration and renovation of the old girl for six 
years. In 1985, Didier and several fellow in- 
vestors bought the hotel. Didier took over 
sole ownership last year. 

Didier credits Wieseler for "a vision of 
what the old hotel could become again, and 
the wherewithal to make it happen." 

With much of the needed remodeling 
behind him, Didier has turned his attention 
to what he calls his main commodity. Serv- 
ice. "We have a totally people-oriented busi- 
ness. All we sell here is service. Because of 
that, the most important part of the hotel is 
our people." 

Didier is spending $50,000 with a local 
Dale Carnegie team to coach virtually all of 
the hotel's 110 employees on being as serv- 
ice-oriented as humanly possible. From the 
uniformed bellman who greets most guests 
on the sidewalk outside the lobby, to the 
maids who clean the rooms, Didier wants 
friendly service. He's happy with what he 
sees. 

"We all care about this hotel and about 
each other," he said of the staff. "This is 
the only union hotel in the Dakotas, but the 
union has been no problem. Unions aren't 
necessary when management is fair." 

The Alex has a step up on the competi- 
tion, not only because of its 60-year history, 
but also because of its downtown location. It 
is a popular gathering spot for local busi- 
ness men and women, who come to eat in 
the fine Landmark Restaurant or have cock- 
tails in the newly-opened pub, Paddy 
O'Neill's. 

Rotarians and Kiwanians meet weekly in 
the hotel. An old ballroom called Yester- 
day's is now used for meetings, conventions 
and an occasional dance band. 

The hotel was a cornerstone to Rapid 
City's downtown development when it was 
built 60 years ago. With the ground break- 
ing came a two-year construction boom that 
brought over $3 million in new buildings to 
the city. 

The Alex is still the hub of the downtown. 
And with a $1 million annual payroll, it's a 
sizable industry, aside from its historical im- 
portance. Didier says concerned citizens can 
rest assured that the hotel is on its way 
back from those difficult years. "It is at the 
point where we have broken even cashwise 
with it, and this year with some good for- 
tune we hope to generate some cash for 
non-essential improvements." 

He believes the key to future financial 
success lies with his staff's ability to market 
the uniqueness and nostalgic environment 
of the hotel. Rapid City is not an easy town 
for motel operators these days. There has 
been a 25 percent increase in the number of 
hotel rooms in the last five years without a 
corresponding increase in the number of 
visitors, says Didier. That creates competi- 
tion, and it accounts for The Alex's reasona- 
ble rates— $45 for a single room and $50 for 
double occupancy (slightly higher in the 
summer) and $210 for suites that have 



housed such notables as Calvin Coolidge, 
FDR, Dwight Eisenhower, Gerald Ford, 
Ronald Reagan, Clark Gable, The Osmonds, 
Cary Grant, Gene Autry, Neil Sedaka and 
many others. 

Guests at The Alex Johnson may walk 
through the downtown area and see a 
number of historic commercial buildings. 
However, few of the structures have re- 
tained the historical integrity of the old 
hotel. "We are seeing some successes on 
buildings in Rapid City, and still other 
buildings should be restored," said Didier. 
"The tough part of historic renovation is 
that it takes a dollar commitment to up- 
grade and restore a building and often there 
is not an economic reward." 

Didier hopes to see more attention paid to 
historic buildings, not just in Rapid City but 
throughout the Black Hills and the entire 
state. "Partly, that's because I'm a history 
buff. But also, historic buildings are impor- 
tant because of tradition. There is nobody 
in town who can build a building and say 
President Coolidge slept there. It is impor- 
tant to preserve and respect that link with 
our past. 

"Another reason is the beauty of the 
buildings," he said. "You're not going to 
build a building today and put hand-carved 
wooden Indians in the lobby anymore. The 
grandeur, the excellence of workmanship, 
can't be matched today." 

Other historic hotels in South Dakota 
have received some overdue attention in 
recent years. The Charles Gurney in Yank- 
ton, the St. Charles in Pierre, and the Evans 
in Hot Springs have been updated and con- 
verted largely into apartments and office 
space. Several others continue to serve as 
full service hotels, including the Franklin in 
Deadwood, the Ward in Aberdeen and the 
St. Vincent in Flandreau. 

Historic hotels are, at least economically, 
like a beautiful woman, says Didier, "You 
devote massive amounts of time and atten- 
tion to them and you put lots of financial 
resources into your love . . . and in the end, 
probably your greatest reward is that you 
were able to love them and experience 
them." 



OLDER AMERICANS ACT 

Mr. HATCH. Mr. President, yester- 
day we passed the Older Americans 
Act, H.R. 1451. That legislation includ- 
ed an amendment of mine which will 
provide health care in the home for 
Americans. My statement was included 
in the Record, but some additional in- 
formation describing the amendment 
was inadvertantly not included. I ask 
unanimous consent that a hearing 
statement from Philip W. Brickner, 
M.D., and my description of the legis- 
lation be included in the Record as 
part of the legislative history. 

Dr. Brickner recently testified 
before the Senate Labor and Human 
Resources Committee on a home 
health program he has been working 
on. This legislation is in part based on 
his excellent work. 

There being no objection, the mate- 
rial was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23123 



Testimony on Catastrophic Illness Ex- 
penses Legislation ey Philip W. 
Brickner, M.D. 

Older persons in the United States par- 
ticularly need protection against the costs 
of catastrophic illness. This legislation is 
significant and important in its design to 
insure against the catastrophic expenses of 
those under treatment in acute care hospi- 
tal beds for prolonged periods. The legisla- 
tion is also significant because it uses the 
Medicare program as the mechanism 
through which coverage will be provided. 
Medicare is an empirically proven, trusted 
and reliable insurance program, in the views 
of most older persons in our country. How- 
ever, in recent years the failure of Medicare 
regulations to allow payment for the costs 
of chronic disability has come under scruti- 
ny, and the present legislation is perhaps 
the first to focus on chronicity of disease as 
a matter of concern. 

Unfortunately, this legislation does not 
take the next necessary major step. Its ben- 
efits will accrue only to those persons, small 
in number, who must stay in hospitals for 
lengthy periods of time. The bill will not 
provide help for the majority of older dis- 
abled individuals who face the much more 
common financial catastrophe of long term 
chronic disease. The bill fails to respond to 
the demographic imperative of the aging in 
this country, that fact that over the next 
several decades the numbers of those over 
65 years will double from the present figure, 
and those over age 85 will quadruple. A sig- 
nificant proportion of these older persons 
will be disabled, and will need help. Without 
further Medicare amendment, they will not 
get the help they need. 

The frail and disabled aged have few ac- 
ceptable options for care today. Pressure to 
leave a hospital bed is inevitable, once the 
acute phase of illness or injury has passed. 
Where next? Nursing homes are crowded 
and expensive; and placement in such insti- 
tutions will be increasingly limited to the 
most disabled and helpless of the aged, 
those that demonstrably must receiv-e 
twenty-four hour a day care. The vast pro- 
portion of frail older persons, then, will 
need, and will usually wish to receive, serv- 
ices at home. At Saint Vincent's Hospital in 
New York City we have been caring for 
homebound aged persons in the community 
with hospital-based doctor-nurse-social 
worker teams since 1973. We have made 
more than 18,000 home visits in this four- 
teen-year period, and have cared for about 
1500 individuals. Two-thirds are women. 
Two-thirds live alone. The common, strong- 
ly-expressed desire of our patients, whose 
average age is 83 years, is summed up by the 
remark of one woman as our team arrived 
for its first home visit: "Thank God you're 
here. If only you'll keep me out of a nursing 
home." 

If we fail to act, we may well repeat the 
catastrophe of the deinstitutionalization 
movement of the chronic mentally ill. In 
the early 1960's the civil rights activists of 
that era combined with leadership in state 
governments to discharge from state mental 
hospitals, the asylums, many patients with 
long-term emotional illness. In theory, new 
community-based programs such as clinics 
and half-way houses were to serve instead, 
when combined with the benefits new drugs 
such as chlorpromazine. However, as a walk 
through any major city will show, many 
mentally ill persons are struggling without 
shelter, without asylum, on the streets, in 
the parks, on riverbanks, under viaducts, in 
train and bus stations. The major distinc- 



tion between the chronic mentally ill and 
many of the frail elderly is that the latter 
will suffer out of sight, in their own rooms, 
apartments or homes, without adequate 
help. 

I urge that the present bill be passed. 
Then, we should move on to the next task: 
amendment of Medicare to insure against 
the catastrophic costs of chronic disease, to 
wean it from its sole focus on acute illness. 
Arbitrary regulations now bar persons enti- 
tled to Medicare from long term services 
through devices such as the skilled nursing 
and the intermittent care requirements. It is 
as though those with prolonged illness 
cannot need skilled care, and that the costs 
of care should be covered only if the disease 
requires attention intermittently. This 
makes no sense. We should recognize that 
the catastrophic health care problems of 
the elderly, such as those caused by the de- 
mentias, stroke, chronic heart and lung dis- 
ease, arthritis, fractures of the leg and hip, 
demand skilled care over the long term. 

Prompt consideration should be given to 
funding for a spectrum of non-institutional 
services for the frail aged. Medicare amend- 
ment is a priority. In addition, new forms of 
insurance, innovative uses of personal assets 
such as home equity loans, and various 
types of personal housing should be consid- 
ered. The "Home and Community Based 
Services Act of 1987", sponsored by Senator 
Orrin Hatch, is a significant opportunity. It 
allows grant funds to be used across the 
country for innovative home health care 
programs. Passage of Senator Hatch's bill is 
one of many actions that will be needed to 
deal in a prompt, temperate, logical, orderly 
and humane manner with the catastrophe 
of chronic disability among the growing 
numbers of frail and disabled older persons 
in this country. 

Health Care Services in the Home Act 

This measure would authorize $100 mil- 
lion a year for fiscal years 1988 through 
1990 for allotments to states to provide 
health care services to individuals with cata- 
strophic or chronic illness who can be cared 
for in their own homes. 

Prom the total amount appropriated for 
this program in any year, each state would 
receive an allotment based on the relative 
per capita income of the state multiplied by 
the state's population. Minimum amounts 
as a percentage of the total appropriation 
are established for the states and the vari- 
ous territories. Provisions are included to 
authorize allotments to qualified Indian 
tribes to carry out the purposes of the pro- 
gram. 

Use of Allotments: States could use their 
allotments to: 

(1) pay compensation for the services of 
physicians, nurses, and social workers who 
plan, manage, or provide home health care 
services for eligible persons; 

(2) identify and locate eligible persons 
needing home health care services; 

(3) develop proper standards and quality 
assurance mechanisms for the provision of 
home health care services; 

(4) coordinate home health care services 
for persons with other supportive social 
services; 

(5) coordinate other long term care serv- 
ices provided by public and private institu- 
tions and voluntary organizations to ensure 
provision of these services and to maximize 
the use of funds provided under this bill and 
other federal laws; and 

(6) provide training to health profession- 
als other than physicians, nurses, and social 



workers, particularly training for health 
professionals who work within hospitals, to 
educate individuals who may benefit from 
the provision of health care services in the 
home and training in advanced discharge 
planning. 

States could use amounts allotted to them 
through grants to health care organizations. 
In making these grants, states would give 
priority to home care programs including 
hospital-based home care programs. For a 
health care organization to receive such a 
grant, it would have to agree to use grant 
amounts only for the provision of health 
care services in the home for eligible indi- 
viduals. 

Allotment use Conditions: At least 85 per- 
cent of the total amount allotted to a state 
in fiscal year 1988 would have to be used to 
pay compensation for the services of physi- 
cians, nurses, and social workers as outlined 
above. 

In fiscal year 1988 no more than 10 per- 
cent of the allotted amount could be used 
for activities other than the payment of 
compensation. For later years not more 
than 5 percent could be used for activities 
other than the payment of compensation. 
The legislation stipulates that no more than 
$2,500 per year could be used by a state with 
respect to any eligible individual to pay 
compensation for the services of physicians, 
nurses, and social workers. 

States could not use allotments to (1) pro- 
vide inpatient services except services in- 
volving advanced discharge planning; (2) 
make cash payments to intended recipients 
of services; (3) purchase or improve land or 
any building or facility or purchase major 
medical equipment; (4) satisfy any require- 
ment for the expenditure of nonfederal 
funds as a condition for the receipt of feder- 
al funds; (5) provide services to an individ- 
ual if the total cost to the federal govern- 
ment of providing those services would 
exceed the total cost of institutionalization 
of the individual; (6) provide reimbursement 
for services performed by any individual 
other than a physician, nurse, or social 
worker; or (7) provide supportive social serv- 
ices for which planning and management is 
conducted under authority of this legisla- 
tion. 

The Secretary, if requested by the state, 
would provide technical assistance to the 
state in planning and operating activities to 
be carried out under this bill. 

Application Requirements: Each applica- 
tion for an allotment under this program 
would have to contain assurances that the 
state will meet the following requirements: 
( 1 ) it will certify that the state agrees to use 
the allotted funds in accordance with re- 
quirements of this legislation; (2) it will pro- 
vide assurances that the chief executive of- 
ficer will designate or establish a state 
agency to administer funds provided under 
this legislation; (3) it will certify that the 
state will coordinate the provision of health 
care services in the home with funds provid- 
ed under this authority with activities con- 
ducted to provide those services by volun- 
tary, religious, and community organiza- 
tions and local governments; (4) it will pro- 
vide assurances that the state will make rea- 
sonable efforts to provide health care serv- 
ices in the home through home care pro- 
grams in the state including home care pro- 
grams based in hospitals; and (5) it will pro- 
vide assurances that the state will, to the 
maximum extent feasible, provide health 
care services in the home to individuals who 
are low-income individuals and who are not 



23124 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



receiving equivalent home care services 
under the state's Medicaid program. 

The chief executive officer would have to 
prepare a description of the intended use of 
these allotments, including information on 
the programs and activities to be supported 
and the services to be provided. This de- 
scription would be made public within the 
state to allow comment from any interested 
person during development of the descrip- 
tion and after its transmittal. 

Evaluation: The Secretary would conduct 
or arrange for the conduct of evaluations of 
services provided and activities carried out 
with allotments to the states under this au- 
thority. 

Definitions: The legislation defines the 
term eligible individual to mean any individ- 
ual who (1) resides at home and is at risk of 
institutionalization because of medical limi- 
tations on the ability of the individual to 
function independently; (2) is a patient in a 
hospital who is at risk of prolonged hospi- 
talization and who could be cared for in a 
long term care institution or could return to 
the community if health care services in the 
home are available; or (3) is a patient in a 
skilled nursing facility or an intermediate 
care facility who could return to the com- 
munity if health care services in the home 
are available. 



TRIBUTE TO FRANK BROOKS 
YIELDING, JR. 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, it is my 
honor to rise, today, to pay tribute to 
Frank Brooks Yielding, Jr., of Bir- 
mingham, AL, who has recently an- 
nounced that he will step down in Jan- 
uary 1988 as chairman of Jefferson 
Federal Savings and Loan Association. 
However, I know that everyone at the 
association is pleased that he will con- 
tinue to serve as a member of the 
board of directors, and as chairman 
emeritus. 

For many, many years, Mr. Yielding 
has been a business and civic leader 
both in Birmingham, and in my home 
State of Alabama. Throughout his 
career, he has worked to advance the 
standing of Alabama and of America. I 
believe that he should be commended 
for his great efforts through the 
years. He has helped his community 
and our State to accomplish great 
things, and all should be thankful for 
his tireless labor. 

The Yielding family has long played 
an important role in the history of 
Birmingham, our State and our 
Nation. Mr. Yielding's great grandfa- 
ther, Francis Yielding, lived in Blount 
County, AL and served in the War of 
1812. His grandfather, William Berry 
Yielding, lost his life while serving the 
Confederacy during the War Between 
the States. Mr. Yielding's father, 
Francis Bee Yielding, moved to Bir- 
mingham at the age of 17 in 1876, only 
4 years after it was founded, to begin a 
career as a merchant. Since that year, 
the name Yielding has been associated 
with retail merchandising in Birming- 
ham, and today it identifies one of the 
city's leading department stores, still 
in family ownership after more than a 
century of operation. 



Frank Yielding was born in Birming- 
ham just after the turn of the centu- 
ry. He entered the business world at 
an early age, and by the time he was 
15 he was self-sufficient, earning his 
spending money and clothing allow- 
ance by driving a truck for the Bir- 
mingham News. In 1921, he enrolled in 
my alma mater, the Birmingham- 
Southern College, and paid his college 
expenses by driving a truck for Yield- 
ing Bro. department Store. 

After Mr. Yielding graduated from 
Birmingham-Southern in 1925, he 
joined the staff of Jefferson Federal 
Savings and Loan Association, which 
was then known as Jefferson County 
Building and Loan Association. He was 
made secretary, and at that time Jef- 
ferson Federal was a $3 Vz million asso- 
ciation. The next 4 years were profita- 
ble ones, and by the time he was made 
secretary-treasurer in 1929 its assets 
had grown by $1 million. At that time, 
however, the Great Depression hit and 
financial institutions throughout the 
Nation were forced to close. Yet, Jef- 
ferson Federal weathered the storm of 
these years in an outstanding manner. 
In 1936, when it converted to a Feder- 
al charter, the balance sheet read $1V2 
million. 

In the years since that time, under 
the steady guidance that Frank Yield- 
ing has provided, the association has 
prospered. Mr. Yielding was made 
president of Jefferson Federal in 1949 
when assets were just over $4 million. 
Today, the Jefferson Federal Savings 
and Loan Association is a $500-million 
institution, of which Mr. Yielding has 
been chairman of the board and chief 
executive officer since 1976. 

Mr. Yielding has been active in 
many other business ventures 
throughout the years. He has served 
as either director or president, or 
both, of nine different companies. He 
has provided tremendous leadership to 
many of the professional organizations 
of the savings and loan business, as 
well, having served as president of the 
U.S. Savings and Loan League, the 
first southerner and the only Alabami- 
an to serve in this office, the Alabama 
Savings and Loan League, and the 
Southeastern Group Conference, 
among many others. And for his great 
experience and expertise, he is known 
by his peers as "the Dean of the Sav- 
ings and Loan Business." 

As I have mentioned, Frank Yielding 
has also provided outstanding leader- 
ship to Birmingham and to Alabama 
in civic and community affairs. During 
World War II, he was head of the Jef- 
ferson County War Price and Ration- 
ing Board. Under his leadership, the 
board was nationally recognized for its 
efficiency and fairness, and was used 
as a model in setting up boards in 
many other cities. Because it was so ef- 
fective at distributing in a fair manner 
what limited supplies our soldiers 
could spare, there was not even the 



slightest indication of black market ac- 
tivity. Throughout the years, he has 
also been active and has provided lead- 
ership to many organizations, includ- 
ing the Birmingham Chamber of Com- 
merce; the Birmingham Better Busi- 
ness Bureau; the Birmingham United 
Appeal; the Freedom Foundation; and 
the Birmingham Historical Society. 
Additionally, he served as the presi- 
dent of the Birmingham Kiwanis 
Club, the fourth largest Kiwanis Club 
in the world. 

Mr. Yielding's efforts have been rec- 
ognized and they have been rewarded. 
For his work for his college, he re- 
ceived the Birmingham-Southern Col- 
lege Distinguished Alumni Award in 
1967, and in 1983, he was awarded an 
honorary LLD. Furthermore, a schol- 
arship at Birmingham-Southern bears 
his name. Also in 1983, he was recog- 
nized by the State of Alabama by 
being elected to the Academy of 
Honor. 

Frank Yielding has, indeed, provided 
great service to the State of Alabama. 
Yet, I know that he was a devoted hus- 
band to his wife of 67 years, the late 
Augusta Smith Yielding, and he is a 
loving father. His son, Frank Brooks 
Yielding III, has followed in his fa- 
ther's footsteps and now serves as 
president, and as a member of the 
board of Jefferson Federal. 

Throughout his life, Frank Yielding 
has dedicated himself to his communi- 
ty and to our State. His efforts have 
resulted in many of the benefits that 
countless citizens now enjoy. With 
care and devotion, he has played an in- 
strumental role in helping the city of 
Birmingham to realize its potential, 
and to become the great place it now 
is. On behalf of the citizens of Ala- 
bama, I wish to thank him for his 
great service. 



TRIBUTE TO BISHOP JOSEPH G. 
VATH 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I was 
saddened to learn of the untimely 
death of Bishop Joseph G. Vath, who 
served as bishop of the Roman Catho- 
lic diocese of Birmingham since it was 
created in 1969. Throughout his life, 
Bishop Vath was dedicated to helping 
others, and to improving the lives of 
people in the communities of our 
State and Nation. He was a man whose 
actions were dictated by his con- 
science, and whose conscience was 
molded by his belief and faith in God. 
His efforts benefited not just those 
who shared his religion or who resided 
in his community. Rather, his efforts 
benefited all people. And I know that 
his death is mourned by many. 

Bishop Vath was ordained a priest in 
1941 and was appointed assistant 
pastor of Ascension Church in Donald- 
sonville, LA, where he served until 
1946. He served in several other 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23125 



churches in Louisiana before he was 
consecrated a bishop in 1966. When 
the Birmingham-Mobile diocese was 
separated in 1969, Bishop Vath was 
chosen as the first bishop of the Bir- 
mingham diocese. Prom the time he 
first came to Birmingham it was ap- 
parent that he cared deeply for all 
people. He was enlisted in many causes 
to help people, and it was clear that he 
devoted all of his energy and attention 
to each of these causes. When a meet- 
ing was held to discuss an issue or 
matter of concern to the community, 
Bishop Vath always attended in 
person, rather than to merely send a 
representative of the diocese, so that 
every cause would gain from the stat- 
ure of his office. He embraced, and 
worked to promote every idea, and 
each goal that held even the slightest 
promise of helping even one individ- 
ual. When he recognized a problem, he 
worked to find a solution, and then 
worked even harder to see that solu- 
tion implemented and the problem 
solved. And he recognized and worked 
to solve many, many problems, indeed. 

Perhaps his greatest concern was 
helping the poor and underprivileged, 
those who often are the least able to 
care for themselves. Yet, he worked in 
so many other ways, as well. He 
worked to improve relations between 
blacks and whites, believing that all 
men and women are viewed by God 
without regard for race or gender— 
they should be viewed on Earth in the 
same manner. He recognized that 
many of the underprivileged elderly 
had no place to live and then worked 
to provide them with a home where 
they could receive the care they 
needed. 

And Bishop Vath's dreams and ef- 
forts were rewarded. He witnessed the 
development of many programs that 
help to care for those who are unable 
to provide for themselves. In the last 
20 years, he was able to see much of 
the bitter conflict between blacks and 
whites end, and turn into joint efforts 
to help our communities. And perhaps 
most recently, in June he saw the 
groundbreaking ceremony for the $2.4 
million Villa Maria Manor Housing for 
the low-income elderly at the St. 
Thomas Catholic Life Center in East 
Lake, AL. 

I had the pleasure of working with 
him in many causes and efforts. He 
conceived the idea that the court 
system of Alabama should have a 
"Red Mass." Annually, on the first 
day of each new court term, a "Red 
Mass" is attended by the supreme 
court justices of Alabama, as well as 
by many other appellate and trial 
judges, who come to Montgomery for 
this religious service dedicated toward 
the improvement of justice. I worked 
with him on a number of issues in our 
Nation, as well, such as efforts to pre- 
vent abortions. 



Throughout his life, Bishop Vath 
struggled to serve God, and by serving 
God, serve his fellow man in this 
world. His actions on behalf of others 
were sometimes controversial— but his 
conscience was always clear. He always 
knew that the action he took was just. 
Bishop Vath will be greatly missed, 
just as he is now greatly mourned. 
Yet, his actions, his efforts, and his 
example are evident. He demonstrated 
the path all men and women— whether 
Catholic or Protestant, Christian or 
Jew— should follow in this world. His 
life showed the good that will come 
from service for others. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the attached newspaper arti- 
cles be printed in the Congressional 
Record. They describe the life and the 
service Bishop Vath provided to his 
community, my State, and our Nation. 

There being no objection, the arti- 
cles were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

[From the Birmingham Post-Herald, July 

16, 1987] 

Bishop Joseph G. Vath 

Bishop Joseph G. Vath's unexpected 
death has taken from this community a 
man who devoted his life to bettering the 
human condition. 

Vath was more than the spiritual leader 
of Roman Catholics in the Birmingham dio- 
cese, which encompasses the northern part 
of Alabama. He worked long and hard to 
help the less fortunate members of society, 
regardless of their religious beliefs. He was 
a believer in ecumenical efforts, working 
with individuals and organizations from a 
variety of denominations on projects that 
helped individuals who had few places to 
turn. 

Vath's deeply held faith and beliefs did 
not allow him to build a wall between reli- 
gious and secular activities. The church, for 
him, had to be an active participant in this 
world as it kept open the bridge to the next. 
One must live one's faith. 

This sometimes led him into taking con- 
troversial, even momentarily unpopular, 
stands on issues. But anybody who took the 
time to consider his views had to be con- 
vinced of his unselfish motives. He may 
have risen in the hierarchy of his church, 
but he always considered himself a serv- 
ant—a servant of God and a servant of his 
fellow man. 

The servant has now gone on to his 
reward. But his legacy remains. In his 18 
years as bishop in Birmingham, Joseph G. 
Vath did much to improve this community 
and the lives of its members. Catholic and 
non-Catholic alike have many reasons to be 
thankful for his time among us. 

Heart Attack Kills Catholic Bishop Vath 
(By Emmett Weaver and Bruce Milligan) 
Bishop Joseph G. Vath, leader of the 
Roman Catholic Diocese of Birmingham, 
died last night in University Hospital of an 
apparent heart attack. 
He was 69. 

Vath, whose sometimes controversial 
stands on public issues earned him state- 
wide recognition, has been a bishop in Ala- 
bama 21 years. 

Victor Clark, abbot of St. Bernard's Abbey 
in Cullman, said he and Vath were driving 
to Montgomery on Sunday when he com- 



plained of chest pains. They were on their 
way to a parole hearing for Edward Mark- 
ley, imprisoned for offenses connected to 
his anti-abortion activities. 

Clark said Vath checked himself, into St. 
Vincent's Hospital in Birmingham. He was 
later transferred to University Hospital 
where he died at 7:49 p.m., a hospital 
spokesman said. 

Rev. Brian Egan, director of development 
for the diocese, said he saw Vath at St. Vin- 
cent's Hospital yesterday. He said Vath was 
in "wonderful spirits, and was looking for- 
ward to going home in a few days. 

Egan said the bishop was transferred to 
University Hospital when he developed fluid 
in the lungs. He said Vath's family had a 
history of heart trouble. 

At University Hospital, a blockage was dis- 
covered in the blood vessels around the 
heart. 

"They apparently intended to perform 
surgery, but didn't have time. He died 
peacefully," the priest said. 

Egan said the bishop was "a kind, warm, 
personable person who was loved by every- 
one. He was especially concerned for the 
poor and the underprivileged." 

Egan said Vath's dream was to build a 
home for retired elderly people living on a 
fixed income. Ground was broken June 29 
for such a home at the St. Thomas-on-the- 
Hill facility in East Lake. 

Clark, who ordered the bells rung at the 
Cullman abbey after the bishop died, called 
Vath a very kind and gentle man. 

"We will surely miss him," Clark said. 

Prioress Sister Virginia of the Sacred 
Heart Convent in Gadsden said everyone 
there was very saddened by Vath's death. 

"Many of the sisters here had contact 
with him in many areas, including peace 
and justice, and education. He has just been 
a friend to the whole community. It will be 
a real loss," she said. 

Rev. Michael Sexton of St. Francis Xavier 
Church, who is also vicar of the diocese, said 
Vath was a champion of the poor and "a 
strong advocate for peace and justice." 

Sexton also praised the bishop for his 
active part in community affairs. "He also 
was a strong ecumenical leader who reached 
out to all churches and denominations." 

Jefferson County Commissioner John Ka- 
topodis worked with Vath on the church's 
Campaign for Human Development, a 
reach-out social program sponsored by the 
church. 

"No one was more committed to the poor 
than he was," Katopodis said. 

Katopodis also praised Vath's efforts to 
promote positive race relations in Birming- 
ham. "He was a great leader, one who exert- 
ed his energies toward making this a pro- 
gressive community." 

Vath was ordained a priest in 1941 and 
was appointed assistant pastor of Ascension 
Church in Donaldsonville, La., where he 
served from 1941-46. He served in several 
churches in Louisiana before he was conse- 
crated a bishop in 1966. 

He became bishop of the Birmingham- 
based diocese in 1969. 

Vath achieved statewide prominence for 
his stands on social and moral issues. 

He was criticized for asking church mem- 
bers to donate money for the legal defense 
of Tommy Lee Hines, a mentally retarded 
black man accused in 1978 of raping three 
white women. 

In Vath's letter read to church members, 
the bishop said the church was "concerned 
that no person should be denied his or her 



23126 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



human right to appeal due to lack of fi- 
nance." 

Vath spoke out against the 1983 execution 
of convicted murderer John Louis Evans, ex- 
pressing "unconditional opposition" to the 
death penalty. 

When Markley was arrested in 1984 for at- 
tacks on abortion clinics in Birmingham and 
Huntsville, Vath praised the priest for 
acting out the designs of his conscience. But 
Vath said he did not condone violence— even 
to achieve a desirable end. 

Church officials last night said funeral ar- 
rangements have not been made. 

[From The Birmingham News, July 16, 

1987] 

Bishop Vath 

This community lost a caring and deeply 
involved leader when the Most Rev. Joseph 
G. Vath, bishop of the Catholic Diocese of 
Birmingham, died Tuesday. 

While other church leaders might often 
send their associates to ecumenical meetings 
over such issues as assisting the poor, 
Bishop Vath always came himself. He 
"wanted to give the stature of his office to 
the things we were trying to do," said Dr. 
David Huffines, a former Presbyterian exec- 
utive who had worked with him since 
Bishop Vath was appointed the first bishop 
of the Birmingham diocese Dec. 9, 1969. 

That was the kind of leader Bishop Vath 
was. He lived among the people, worked for 
the people and loved the people of the com- 
munity. 

For example, he had hoped and prayed 
and worked for housing for the elderly. He 
saw that dream come true just last month 
with the ground-breaking ceremony for the 
$2.4 million Villa Maria Manor housing 
project for low-income elderly at the St. 
Thomas Catholic Life Center in East Lake. 

Intense involvement has been the hall- 
mark of Bishop Vath's tenure, including 
such controversial actions as promoting in- 
tegration of Catholic schools in Alabama 
and preventing them from being used as a 
refuge from public school integration. 

His concern was not just for his own de- 
nomination, but for all the people, especial- 
ly the poor and underprivileged. 

Bishop Vath's death at age 69 is a loss for 
all of us. Birmingham was richer for his life 
and service here. He will be missed. 



TRIBUTE TO DEAN CHARLES 
GAMBLE 

Mr. HEFLIN. Mr. President, I am 
honored to rise, today, to pay tribute 
to Charles W. Gamble, who stepped 
down this past spring as the dean of 
the Alabama School of Law. During 
his tenure as dean, Charles Gamble 
greatly strengthened our law school. 
He enhanced its regional reputation 
and provided it with a force of nation- 
al impact. He has provided the law 
school with a great stability and a re- 
newed sense of purpose. Because of his 
efforts and successes, Dean Gamble 
deserves the appreciation of all Ala- 
bamians, for by his service he has 
strengthened the law in Alabama. 

Throughout his life, he dedicated 
himself to academics and to scholar- 
ship. After an outstanding record at 
Jacksonville State University, where 
he received B.S. degrees in English 
with honors and in history in 1965, he 



enrolled in the Alabama School of 
Law. While at the Law School, he 
served as a member of the Alabama 
Law Review, was a research assistant 
to a law professor, and was on the Stu- 
dent Bar Executive Council. He was 
also honored as a member of the 
Order of the Coif, the Farrah Order of 
Jurisprudence, and the Bench and Bar 
Legal Honor Society. He received his 
J.D. degree from the law school in 
1968, and then received an LL.M. from 
Harvard Law School in 1971. 

Dean Gamble began teaching as an 
associate professor in business at Jack- 
sonville State University in 1968, im- 
mediately after he received his law 
degree from the Alabama School of 
Law. In 1972, he became an assistant 
professor at the Cumberland School of 
Law, Samford University, was made an 
associate professor in 1973, and 
became a professor in 1975. He re- 
mained at Cumberland until 1982, 
where he taught evidence, advanced 
evidence, commercial transactions, 
contracts, torts, restitution, and bank- 
ruptcy. During is tenure at Cumber- 
land he was twice voted "Outstanding 
Professor" by the student body. Dean 
Gamble returned to the Alabama 
School of Law in the summer of 1982 
as a visiting professor, and in the fall 
he joined the permanent faculty and 
was named acting dean. Throughout 
his tenure as dean, Charles Gamble 
has continued teaching and is consid- 
ered by both colleagues and students 
to be among the best professors at the 
law school. 

Throughout his teaching career, 
Dean Gamble wrote and published 
many articles. He wrote a third edition 
of "McElroy's Alabama Evidence," and 
together with the late Donald E. 
Corley, dean of the Cumberland 
School of Law, authored a manual of 
damages entitled "Alabama Law of 
Damages." 

It is clear that the first loves of 
Charles Gamble are teaching and 
scholarship. Thus, it is equally clear 
that it was with some reluctance that 
Charles Gamble accepted the dean- 
ship of the Alabama School of Law in 
1982. I believe that he would have pre- 
ferred to continue teaching and pub- 
lishing. Indeed, only days after he had 
been named acting dean, he outlined 
his primary goal in an address to the 
Alabama Law School Alumni. "So if 
any of you wonder what my ambition 
is over the next two years," he said, "it 
is to do the greatest good for the de- 
velopment of my law school and there- 
upon to promptly return to the class- 
room." 

I believe that I can speak for all of 
Alabama when I say that in his 5 years 
as dean, Charles Gamble has contrib- 
uted tremendously to the development 
of our law school. He has attracted 
wonderful professors who share his 
enthusiasm for teaching, and for 
scholarship. He has worked to increase 



alumni support for the law school, 
both through financial contributions, 
and, perhaps more importantly, 
through contributions of their time, 
experience, and knowledge. Dean 
Gamble's efforts have resulted in a 
strong, bright, and unified student 
body, and is a strong, caring, and 
active faculty. And he accomplished 
the crucial task of generating the con- 
fidence and the optimism with which 
the students, faculty, and alumni must 
view their law school. 

But perhaps the greatest goal Dean 
Gamble has accomplished is, as he 
stated, himself in 1982, "to remind all 
concerned that outstanding teaching, 
research and service are basic to any 
great law school." He has reminded ev- 
eryone that no recruiting program, no 
amount of funding, and no enormous 
facility could replace the basic goals of 
outstanding teaching, research and 
service. Dean Gamble kept the Ala- 
bama School of Law back on the right 
path with emphasis on scholarship, re- 
search and excellent teaching. He was 
able to do this in an outstanding ca- 
pacity because he has devoted himself 
throughout his life to these same pur- 
suits. 

Moreover, I believe that by encour- 
aging these goals, he has demonstrat- 
ed the principles by which all attor- 
neys should live and work. They 
should strive to teach what they have 
learned. They should endeavor to com- 
plete the necessary research by which 
a difficult case in won. And they 
should labor to provide service to their 
communities, their States, and their 
law school. More importantly, howev- 
er, they should serve justice by serving 
the law. The goals Dean Gamble has 
identified apply at every level of the 
law, and in every capacity of life. 

Dean Charles Gamble has left a 
deep mark on the Alabama School of 
Law. He has improved its facilities, 
and its capabilities. He has strength- 
ened its faculty, and its student body. 
He has enhanced its reputation. Yet, I 
believe that his greatest accomplish- 
ment is the direction he has provided 
to all attorneys, who are responsible 
for protecting and defending the 
rights and the liberties of the citizens 
of my State and our Nation. I am de- 
lighted that Charles Gamble will 
remain as a professor at the Alabama 
School of Law. He is a strong asset to 
the law school. I am sure that he will 
continue as he has in the past— dedi- 
cating himself to teaching, research, 
and service. And I hope that he will be 
fully content with his position, and 
will remain for many, many years to 
come, unless he changes his mind and 
returns to the deanship. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESS;ONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23127 



RECOGNIZING TIM BAKER 
Mr. McCONNELL. Mr. President, I 
rise today to recognize and commend a 
truly outstanding student, Tim Baker, 
of Cundiff, KY. A senior at Adair 
County High School, Tim was recently 
honored with the highest Future 
Farmers of America award in the 
Commonwealth— the FFA Star 
Farmer Award for Kentucky, the 
Adair Progress recently reported. 

This award is given each year to the 
student displaying the most outstand- 
ing farm program, leadership abilities, 
and accomplishment in Future Farm- 
ers of America. Tim oversees a 75-acre 
farm and beef cattle operation, the 
Adair Progress explains in a feature 
article on this high school student. His 
success represents a new era of stu- 
dent accomplishment in agriculture, 
an integral part of the Kentucky econ- 
omy and vitally important to the na- 
tion's livelihood. This prestigious rec- 
ognition serves as a valuable model for 
all high school students. 

Mr. President, I hope my colleagues 
share my sentiments in recognizing 
Tim Baker for his exemplary accom- 
plishment. The FFA Star Farmer of 
Kentucky certainly warrants the at- 
tention of Congress. 



ADMINISTRATION 
AGRICULTURAL PROPOSAL II 

Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, yester- 
day, I outlined the reason that I 
thought the administration's approach 
to agriculture in the new GATT round 
was not practical. 

Today, I want to suggest a better, 
more focused plan. 

THE BAUCUS PROPOSAL 

I believe the major players in the 
world agricultural market could bene- 
fit from an agreement that contained 
the following elements: 

An international concensus to end or 
sharply decrease production and 
export subsidies on major crops, such 
as wheat, feed grains, and soybeans. 

Agreement from major importers, 
like Japan, to gradually open their ag- 
ricultural markets. 

Continuation of effective farm sup- 
port programs that have at best a min- 
iscule effect on trade patterns. Such 
programs include the U.S. Agricultural 
Extension Service and Farm Credit 
System or similar programs in foreign 
countries. 

An understanding that Government 
programs which attempt to stabilize 
market prices without significantly 
distorting world markets are useful. A 
basic commodity loan, provided that it 
is not set so high as to encourage pro- 
duction, falls into this category. 

A narrow, defined focus. Clearly, 
there are some commodities that are 
highly protected in many markets. In- 
cluding these commodities in a global 
agreement will only doom the pros- 
pects for reaching a final solution. 



WHY IS THIS BETTZR? 

In the case of certain major com- 
modities, including wheat, feed grains, 
and soybeans, all parties would benefit 
from an international agreement 
along the lines that I have just de- 
scribed. 

The major producers of these com- 
modities—the United States, the EEC, 
Australia, Argentina, Canada— are 
caught up in a costly subsidy war in 
which all producers subsidize their ex- 
ports of these commodities in order to 
hold their market share. 

Ending this subsidy war is in the 
best interest of everyone. 

Australia and Argentina have gener- 
ally low farm supports and low costs of 
production. These nations would likely 
increase exports if production and 
export subsidies on major commodities 
were eliminated. 

The United States and Canada have 
generally low costs of production, but 
fairly high farm supports. If an inter- 
national agreement to cut subsidies 
were reached, they would be in the en- 
viable position of both increasing ex- 
ports and decreasing Government 
costs. Right now, these three commod- 
ities alone account for 67 percent of 
the cost of the U.S. farm program. 

The EEC would be the most difficult 
party in which to reach an agreement 
on production and export subsidies for 
wheat, feed grains, and soybeans. 

But if highly sensitive commodities, 
like beef, sugar, and dairy, are not on 
the agenda, the EEC may view an 
international agreement as the only 
way to hold down sky-rocketing farm 
costs. The common agricultural policy 
is now absorbing 70 percent of the 
EEC's annual budget, and placing a 
heavy burden on EEC consumers. 

The EEC may also see the many po- 
litical benefits to decreasing trade fric- 
tions with the United States. 

Some of the major export markets 
for grains, like Japan and South 
Korea, may also be convinced to lower 
their import barriers against wheat, 
feed grains, and soybeans. 

Increasing imports of these commod- 
ities may be a way for Japan and 
South Korea to simultaneously de- 
crease trade tensions with the West 
and lower their consumer food costs, 
while retaining some of the most po- 
litically important parts of their farm 
program. 

All in all, there is a significant com- 
monality of interests in reaching an 
agreement like the one just outlined— 
everyone has something to gain. 

However, if we attempt to pursue a 
still broader agreement that covers all 
commodities and all programs the 
common interest disappears. 

Even nations such as Australia and 
Argentina, who have a great deal to 
gain from an international agreement, 
may find it difficult to eliminate cer- 
tain farm programs that extend credit 
and other services to farmers. 



As the reaction of our own farmers 
indicates, nations like the United 
States and Canada would have a great 
deal of difficulty dropping supports on 
certain heavily protected commodities, 
such as sug-",r and dairy. 

The United States Congress would 
have great difficulty terminating vital 
rural programs, like that Agricultural 
Extension Service and the Farm 
Credit System. These programs have 
never been a source of trade frictions 
and provide vital services to rural 
America. 

Most agricultural exporters have 
similar programs which should not be 
part of an international agreement. 

In the case of the EEC, a sweeping 
agreement is likely to be impossible, It 
is unlikely that the EEC could muster 
the political will to drop subsidies on 
heavily protected items like dairy, 
sugar, and beef. 

Finally, major importing nations, 
like Japan, may be able to give signifi- 
cant concessions in trade talks. But it 
is unlikely that Japan could complete- 
ly dismantle its agricultural sector to 
achieve an agreement. 

From a free market perspective, 
phasing out all support for all agricul- 
tural commodities may sound appeal- 
ing, but it is just not practical. 

The administration may agree with 
most of what I have just said, but still 
contend that it is better negotiating 
strategy to start high and work back- 
wards. 

That sounds like sound horse trad- 
ing, but it ignores the political ramifi- 
cations of making a more sweeping 
proposal in this situation. 

As I pointed out yesterday, I believe 
that the major farm constituencies, 
both at home and abroad, have been 
galvanized against an international 
agreement by the political Shockwaves 
created by the administration's initial 
proposal. 

In order to achieve an agreement, we 
need to cultivate the support of these 
groups and involve them in negotia- 
tions, not alienate them. 

An agreement is possible now. But 
only if we set our sights on realistic 
goals. 



THE JOHN W. WYDLER U.S. 
COURTHOUSE 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I send 
a bill to the desk, and I ask unanimous 
consent that the Senate proceed to its 
immediate consideration, and I offer it 
on behalf of Mr. D'Amato and Mr. 
Moynihan. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill will be stated by title. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A bill (S. 1642) to designate the U.S. court- 
house located at the intersection of Union- 
dale Avenue and Hempstead Turnpike in 
Uniondale, NY, as the "John W. Wydler 
U.S. Courthouse". 



23128 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there objection to the present consid- 
eration of the bill? 

There being no objection, the Senate 
proceeded to consider the bill. 

Mr. D'AMATO. Mr. President, I rise 
to introduce legislation designating 
the U.S. courthouse in Uniondale, NY, 
as the "John W. Wydler U.S. Court- 
house." 

Senator Moynihan joins me in intro- 
ducing this bill, and asking that it be 
held at the desk and pass by unani- 
mous consent. 

If there was one man responsible for 
making the courthouse in Uniondale, 
Long Island a reality, it was Congress- 
man John Wydler. 

Mr. President, those of us who knew 
and loved Jack Wydler received very 
sad news earlier this week. The Con- 
gressman, who retired in 1981 after 
serving 18 years in the House died on 
Tuesday. 

Senator Moynihan and I seek the 
passage of this bill today in the hope 
that the Congressman's surviving 
family and friends, and the entire 
Long Island Community, can know by 
the time of his funeral tomorrow that 
the courthouse he created will be 
named after him. 

John Wydler served his country with 
honor and distinction all his life. 
During World War II he was a ser- 
geant in the Army Air Corps in the 
China-Burma-India Theater. He was a 
brilliant student and practitioner of 
the law, and an extraordinary public 
servant. 

He graduated Phi Beta Kappa from 
Brown University, and received his law 
degree from Harvard Law School. 

From 1953 to 1959, John Wydler was 
an assistant U.S. attorney in New 
York. He was also a member of the 
New York State commission investi- 
gating school construction irregular- 
ities. 

In 1962, he was elected to the 88th 
Congress. He became a leading 
Member of the House, particularly on 
the Science and Technology Commit- 
tee. 

Truly, there can be no more fitting 
and appropriate name for us to give 
the Uniondale Courthouse than that 
of John W. Wydler, the man who 
made it possible. 

Thank you, Mr. President. 

Mr. MOYNIHAN. Mr. President, in 
these closing moments before adjourn- 
ment, I wish to pause and ask for the 
Senate's consideration of a bill Sena- 
tor D'Amato and I join together in in- 
troducing, namely, legislation honor- 
ing John W. Wydler. 

On Tuesday past Jack Wydler died 
suddenly in Washington. A former col- 
league and fellow New Yorker, Jack 
served both his State and the Con- 
gress with distinction. We have today 
the opportunity to remember him and 
remind his friends in Garden City, 
Long Island of his outstanding service 



as senior member of the New York 
Congressional delegation serving 18 
years in the U.S. House of Representa- 
tives before retiring in 1980. The U.S. 
courthouse in Uniondale, NY stands 
ready as a tribute to Jack. I ask that 
the Senate today adopt this bill desig- 
nating the U.S. courthouse at Union- 
dale and Hempstead Avenues, for 
which Jack was most directly responsi- 
ble, the "John W. Wydler Court- 
house." 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
bill is open to amendment. If there be 
no amendment to be proposed, the 
question is on the engrossment and 
third reading of the bill. 

The bill was ordered to be engrossed 
for a third reading, was read the third 
time, and was passed as follows: 

S. 1642 
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of 
Representatives of the United States of 
America in Congress assembled, 

SECTION 1. DESIGNATION OF BUILDING. 

The United States Courthouse located at 
the intersection of Uniondale Avenue and 
Hempstead Turnpike in Uniondale, New 
York, shall be known and designated as the 
"John W. Wydler United States Court- 
house". 

SEC. 2. LEGAL REFERENCES. 

Any reference to such building in any law, 
map, regulation, document, record, or other 
paper of the United States shall be deemed 
to be a reference to the "John W. Wydler 
United States Courthouse". 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the bill 
was passed. 

Mr. WILSON. Mr. President, I move 
to lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 



RECOGNITION OF THE 
MINORITY LEADER 



The 



The PRESIDING OFFICER. 
Republican leader is recognized. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I believe 
my time has been reserved, is that cor- 
rect? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. That is 
correct. 

Mr. DOLE. I thank the distin- 
guished Presiding Officer. 



BRINGING THE BORK 
NOMINATION TO A VOTE 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I was 
pleased to hear yesterday that Senator 
Biden has no intention of bottling the 
Bork nomination up in committee. But 
the delay that has already occurred 
will cause problems. 

I will not dwell on the point raised 
by others— that the Bork nomination 
will have been delayed in committee 
longer than any other in the past 25 
years— but I will point out that the 
schedule proposed by Senator Biden 
seems almost certain to cause the Su- 
preme Court to open its term on Octo- 
ber 5 with one justice missing. 



Under even the best of circum- 
stances, an eight-person Court creates 
the potential for great confusion in 
the law. A tie vote on a matter of 
enough importance to merit the Su- 
preme Court's attention is never satis- 
factory. 

More significantly, however, the 
delay here will force the Court to pro- 
ceed short-handed at perhaps the 
most critical point in its term. On the 
first Monday in October, the Court an- 
nounces its decisions, reached the 
week before, on hundreds of cases that 
"ripened" over the summer. Last year, 
for example, the Court opened its 
term on October 6 by disposing of 941 
separate cases. Most of these decisions 
involved the crucial question of 
whether the Court was going to hear 
the cases at all. 

In addition, the Court will immedi- 
ately begin to hear argument, and 
decide some of the term's most impor- 
tant cases. Among the issues the Court 
will face during the first 2 weeks of its 
term are the constitutionality of New 
Jersey's "moment of silence;" the ap- 
plicability of the first amendment to 
school newspapers; the scope of the 
"government contractor's" defense to 
tort liability; and the permissibility of 
denying entry visas to members of the 
Communist Party. 

Under even the most optimistic pro- 
jections, the Supreme Court will now 
have to confront those issues short- 
handed. 

Adding to this problem is, of course, 
the prospect of a filibuster. I have 
heard some talk that Judge Bork's op- 
ponents will try to postpone an "up-or- 
down" vote on the nomination indefi- 
nitely. I certainly hope that talk is 
wrong. 

Since the adoption of the closure 
rule in 1917, there has been only one 
successful filibuster of a Supreme 
Court nominee. That, of course, was 
the nomination of Abe Fortas to be 
Chief Justice in 1968, a precedent that 
has been thrown up frequently by 
Judge Bork's opponents as justifying, 
in their minds, just about anything. 

The Fortas filibuster did not, howev- 
er, leave the Court short handed. 
Chief Justice Earl Warren submitted 
his resignation to President Johnson 
"effective at your pleasure," and re- 
mained on the Court throughout the 
debate over Justice Fortas' elevation. 
Indeed, Chief Justice Warren did not 
actually retire from the Court until 
June 23, 1969, well into the Nixon ad- 
ministration. 

Here, unlike the Fortas case, we are 
faced with the prospect of an eight- 
Justice Court unless, and until, this 
body decides upon the Bork nomina- 
tion. This should be reason alone to 
complete debate promptly, and to vote 
yea or nay on the nomination itself. 

In other words, after considerable 
debate, lengthy debate, whatever, 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23129 



there ought to be an up-or-down vote. 
Just as I recall there was an up-or- 
down vote in the Haynsworth nomina- 
tion and Haynsworth was rejected. To 
my mind that was a mistake. Just as 
there was an up-or-down vote on the 
Carswell nomination several years ago. 
I voted for the confirmation of that 
nominee. I think in that case I was 
mistaken. But in any event, there 
ought to be an up-or-down vote. 

In the period before this body had a 
cloture rule, there were cases where 
the Senate simply refused to act on a 
Supreme Court nomination. During 
the Presidency of John Tyler, five 
nominations were submitted to this 
body between January 1844 and Feb- 
ruary 1845; one was rejected, one was 
postponed, two were withdrawn, and 
one was simply not acted upon. 

President Millard Fillmore had a 
similar experience in 1852-53, when 
one nomination was postponed and 
two were not acted upon. 

The Senate refused to act on one 
nomination of President Andrew 
Johnson; it rejected one of President 
Grant's; and he withdrew two others. 
President Rutherford B. Hayes had 
one nomination that was not acted 
upon. 

What the country expects, however, 
is not that the Senate will emulate 
these sorry 19th-century squabbles, 
but rather that we will live up to our 
responsibility under the Constitution 
to consider and vote upon the Presi- 
dent's nomination to bring the Su- 
preme Court up to full strength. 

I propose that we prepare ourselves 
to do this with dispatch once the nom- 
ination emerges from Senator Biden's 
committee. In my opinion, the Ameri- 
can people will not tolerate a filibuster 
that leaves the Court short handed 
and justice ill served. 

Mr. President, I reserve the balance 
of my time. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will call the roll. 

The legislative clerk proceeded to 
call the roll. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that the order for 
the quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 



ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent that there be a 2- 
minute time limitation on the resolu- 
tion which I send to the desk; and the 
distinguished Republican leader is 
here with me. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 



ESTABLISHMENT OF A SENATE 
CENTRAL AMERICAN NEGOTIA- 
TIONS OBSERVER 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I ask that 
the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of a resolution, which I 
now send to the desk on behalf of 
myself and Senator Dole. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
clerk will report the resolution. 

The legislative clerk read as follows: 

A resolution (S. Res. 273) to establish a 
Senate Central American negotiations ob- 
server group. 

Without objection, the Senate pro- 
ceeded to consider the resolution. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, this reso- 
lution is based largely on the observer 
group resolution that we passed some 
several months ago dealing with the 
Geneva negotiations. It would be bi- 
partisan, be equally staffed, and would 
be made up of three Members on each 
side for the Senate. 

This would provide the funding nec- 
essary. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is 
there further debate on the resolu- 
tion? 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I would 
only say this. This is a matter that in 
my view involves the two leaders. I 
want to commend the distinguished 
majority leader. It was his idea. I 
think it is a very good one, and I am 
prepared to act on the resolution. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is all 
time yielded back? 

Mr. BYRD. I yield back any time I 
may have. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 
being no further debate, the question 
is on agreeing to the resolution. 

The resolution (S. Res 273) was 
agreed to, as follows: 



S. Res. 273 



Resolved, 



SHORT TITLE 

Section 1. This resolution may be referred 
to as the "Central American Negotiations 
Observer Group Resolution". 

establishment 
Sec. 2. (a) There is established a biparti- 
san group of Senators to be known as the 
Senate Central American Negotiations Ob- 
server Group (hereafter in this resolution 
referred to as the "Observer Group"), which 
shall consist of eight Senators as follows: 

(1) the Majority Leader and Minority 
Leader of the Senate, each serving ex offi- 
cio; and 

(2) six Senators appointed by the Presi- 
dent pro tempore of the Senate as follows: 

(A) Three Senators appointed upon the 
written recommendation of the Majority 
Leader from among Members of the majori- 
ty party. 

(B) Three Senators appointed upon the 
written recommendation of the Minority 
Leader from among the Members of the mi- 
nority party. 

(b)(1) The Chairman of the Observer 
Group shall be designated by the Majority 
Leader from among the individuals recom- 
mended for appointment under subsection 
(a)(2)(A). 



(2) The Co-Chairman of the Observer 
Group shall be designated by the Minority 
Leader from among the individuals recom- 
mended for appointment under subsection 
(a)(2)(B). 

(c) Any vacancy occurring in the member- 
ship of the Observer Group shall be filled in 
the same manner in which the original ap- 
pointment was made. 

DUTIES 

Sec 3. The duty of the Observer Group 
shall be to act as a group of official observ- 
ers as part of the United States delegation 
to any and all negotiations with the govern- 
ments of the Central American countries of 
Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Hondu- 
ras, and Nicaragua to which the United 
States is a party and to any multilateral ne- 
gotiations or discussions dealing with the 
question of peace in Central America to 
which the governments of such countries 
are invited to participate. 

staff; travel 
Sec 4. (a) The Observer Group is author- 
ized, from funds made available under sec- 
tion 6, to employ such staff (including con- 
sultants at a daily rate of pay) in the 
manner and at a rate not to exceed that al- 
lowed for employees of a standing commit- 
tee of the Senate under paragraph (3) of 
section 105(e) of the Legislative Branch Ap- 
propriation Act, 1968 (2 U.S.C. 61-l(e)), and 
to incur such expenses as may be necessary 
or appropriate to carry out its duties and 
functions. 

(b) The Chairman and Co-Chairman shall 
jointly appoint appropriate staff personnel 
to serve the Observer Group, including cler- 
ical staff as deemed necessary. The staff ap- 
pointments shall be made in writing to the 
Secretary of the Senate. 

(c) The Majority Leader and the Minority 
Leader may each designate one staff 
member as liaison to serve the Observer 
Group, and such personnel may be referred 
to as leadership staff. Funds necessary to 
compensate leadership staff shall be trans- 
ferred from the funds made available under 
section 6(b) of this resolution to the respec- 
tive account from which such designated 
staff member is paid. 

(d) All foreign travel of the Observer 
Group shall be authorized solely by the Ma- 
jority and Minority Leaders, upon the rec- 
ommendation of both the Chairman and 
Co-Chairman. Participation by staff mem- 
bers in authorized foreign travel by the Ob- 
server Group, access to all official activities 
and functions by the Observer Group 
during such travel, and access to all classi- 
fied briefings and information made avail- 
able to the Observer Group during such 
travel, shall be limited exclusively to delega- 
tion members with appropriate clearances. 
No travel or other funding shall be author- 
ized by any committee of the Senate for the 
use of staff, other than delegation staff, in 
regard to the activities described in this sub- 
section, without the written authorization 
of the Majority and the Minority Leader to 
the chairman of such committee. 

(e) Of the Members of the Senate, only 
Senators appointed as members of the Ob- 
server Group may participate in official 
travel and activities of the Observer Group. 
In the event that either the Majority 
Leader or the Minority Leader does not 
travel on an official trip of the Observer 
Group, he may designate one other Senator 
not a member of the Group to travel and 
participate in the activities of the Observer 
Group in his stead. 



23130 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



ACCESS TO AND STORAGE OF DOCUMENTS 

Sec. 5. (a) The Observer Group should 
make arrangements with the Executive 
Branch to provide, on a confidential basis, 
access to the record of any dialogue or nego- 
tiations that may take place relating to 
peace in Central America. 

(b) Classified and other sensitive materials 
assoctated with this Observer Group shall 
be stored under the administration of the 
Secretary of the Senate in the Office of 
Senate Security. 

FUNDS 

Sec. 6. (a) Such sums as are necessary 
from the contingent fund of the Senate, out 
of the Account of Miscellaneous Items, shall 
be made available to pay the expenses of 
the Observer Group, upon vouchers ap- 
proved jointly by the Chairman and Co- 
Chairman (except that vouchers shall not 
be required for the disbursement of salaries 
of employees who are paid at an annual 
rate). 

(b) In addition, such sums as are necessary 
from the contingent fund of the Senate, out 
of the Account of Miscellaneous Items, shall 
be made available for the salaries and ex- 
penses of leadership staff designated in sec- 
tion 4(c) (except for expenses incurred for 
foreign travel). 

(c)(1) Such sums as are necessary may be 
expended by the Observer Group, with the 
prior approval of the Committee on Rules 
and Administration, to procure the tempo- 
rary services (not in excess of one year) or 
intermittent services, including related and 
necessary expenses, of individual consult- 
ants, or organizations thereof, to make stud- 
ies or advise the Observer Group. 

(2) Such services in the cases of individ- 
uals or organization may be procured by 
contract as independent contractors or, in 
the case of individuals, by employment at 
daily rates of compensation not in excess of 
the per diem equivalent to the highest gross 
rate of compensation which may be paid to 
a regular employee of a standing committee 
of the Senate. Such contracts shall not be 
subject to the provisions of section 3709 of 
the Revised Statutes (41 U.S.C. 5) or any 
other provisions of law requiring advertis- 
ing. 

(3) The Observer Group shall submit to 
the Committee on Rules and Administration 
information bearing on the qualifications of 
each consultant whose services are procured 
pursuant to this subsection, including orga- 
nizations, and such information shall be re- 
tained by the Observer Group and shall be 
made available for public inspection upon 
request. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I move to 
reconsider the vote by which the reso- 
lution was agreed to. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, I move to 
lay that motion on the table. 

The motion to lay on the table was 
agreed to. 

Mr. BYRD. I thank the distin- 
guished Republican leader. 

This will allow both parties in the 
Senate to have the advice and counsel 
of independent observers, made up 
from Members of the two parties; ob- 
servers who will give us their inde- 
pendent analysis based on their obser- 
vations. They will not be expected, of 
course, to negotiate. But they will be 
observers and the two leaders and two 
parties will expect to be advised by in- 
dependent observers as to the good 



faith of the negotiations and as to the 
state of play, and the success, and the 
progress of the negotiations. 

I think our experience under the 
Geneva-observer approach has been a 
good experience and the administra- 
tion has been laudatory of their ef- 
forts. 

Secretary of State Shultz has been 
commendatory of the efforts of our 
observers. Senator Stevens, Senator 
Nunn, Senator Pell, the other Sena- 
tors on both sides have been very dili- 
gent and devoted to their work and 
have, I think, been most helpful. Not 
only to Senators on both sides in 
having an understanding of what is 
going on over there but also have been 
helpful to our negotiators. 

Mr. DOLE. Mr. President, if the ma- 
jority leader will yield? 

Mr. BYRD. Yes; I yield. 

Mr. DOLE. It is also consistent with 
what I believe is certainly an appropri- 
ate bipartisan effort on the so-called 
peace initiative; the effort to see if 
there is not some way to negotiate a 
settlement, not just in Nicaragua but 
all of the countries in Central Amer- 
ica. I think it is timely and the majori- 
ty leader will recall he did raise it to 
the President and Secretary of State. I 
think Secretary Shultz, who had prob- 
ably some reservations early on about 
observers in Geneva, has come to rec- 
ognize it has been very productive and 
very helpful to, not only his efforts, 
but the efforts of the administration. 

Mr. BYRD. Yes; that was my obser- 
vation, Mr. President. 

In this resolution as in that resolu- 
tion the two leaders will be ex officio 
members and in the event either 
leader cannot attend a meeting then 
that leader is authorized by the reso- 
lution to appoint a Senator to go in 
his, the leader's, stead. 

That would be the only authority 
given, however, to substitute Senators 
for those that are identified in the res- 
olution. 

Mr. President, I have not utilized my 
time under the standing order. It was 
reserved for me. I yield to the Senator 
from Ohio. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Breaux). The Senator from Ohio is 
recognized. 



THE BORK NOMINATION 

Mr. METZENBAUM. Mr. President, 
I rise today to follow some of those 
speaking about the Department of De- 
fense authorization bill and the inabil- 
ity to bring it to the floor. But that is 
not the only measure we cannot move 
on in the Senate — campaign election 
reform is not moving, Grove City is 
not moving, reauthorization of the in- 
dependent counsel statute is not 
moving, State Department authoriza- 
tion is not moving, catastrophic health 
care legislation is not moving, two Per- 
sian Gulf resolutions are not moving. 



For some reason that I cannot quite 
define, our colleagues on the opposite 
side of the aisle are not prepared to 
permit the majority to move on these 
other important pieces of legislation 
as well. 

Let me say that I do not rise to make 
a major issue of that fact but, rather, 
to mention it in conjunction with the 
comments which have been made on 
the pace of the Bork nomination. 

There has been a considerable 
amount of discussion about whether 
we are moving rapidly enough with re- 
spect to the Bork nomination. 

Some argue we are moving too 
slowly. Frankly, I find that rather 
absurd. This is the most important 
nomination that this body will deal 
with this session, maybe many sessions 
before or after. It will have an impact 
upon our children and our grandchil- 
dren. It could literally change the 
course of the Constitution's interpre- 
tation for years to come. 

So when some say we are really 
moving too slowly, let me say that I 
think just the opposite may be true. 
We need time to dig into the facts, the 
background, the history, the state- 
ments of this nominee. He has spoken 
at great length on many important, 
constitutional issues; he has been a 
prolific writer; he was involved in the 
Saturday Night Massacre. He has not 
been one to hold his tongue, and I do 
not criticize him for that. But those of 
us who sit on the committee which 
must pass judgment on this nomina- 
tion have a tremendous responsibility 
to review Judge Bork's voluminous 
record with fairness and with care. 
And, frankly, that takes time. 

As a matter of fact this Senator has 
actually taken issue with the chair- 
man of our committee on when the 
committee hearings would begin. I 
wanted the hearings to start 1 day 
later, but, no, the chairman had given 
a commitment to the ranking minority 
member to begin on a particular day 
and said he felt obliged to keep that 
commitment regardless of what incon- 
venience it might cause some of us 
who are on the committee. 

Then I wanted to avoid a hearing on 
a Monday when the Senate would not 
be in session. But, no, the chairman 
said, "I am not willing to do that 
either." 

This Senator thinks that there is 
sort of a push, a drive, a determination 
that I see with respect to the Bork 
nomination, that I do not see with re- 
spect to passing legislation here on the 
floor of the Senate. The people who 
are talking about moving the Bork 
nomination are the very same people 
who are not permitting the legislative 
calendar to move forward rapidly 
enough. 

With respect to the Bork nomina- 
tion, history shows us that there were 
many cases where the Court has had 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23131 



less than full membership for several 
months or longer. 

Some express a concern that he may 
not be on the Court on the first day of 
the fall term. I consider that concern 
to be rather inconsequential in light of 
the complexity and importance of the 
confirmation process in this particular 
instance. 

Another false issue is that the 
Senate cannot take the nominee's 
views on the Constitution into ac- 
count, that we cannot take into ac- 
count what he has said, what he has 
written, about the Constitution. 

I find it rather unbelievable that the 
President would make such an argu- 
ment. His own chief of staff, Howard 
Baker, argued just the opposite when 
he was a Member of this body and op- 
posed the nomination of Abe Fortas to 
be Chief Justice. When the present 
White House chief of staff was in the 
Senate, and a well-respected Member 
of this body, he said, regarding the 
Fortas nomination: 

If the Senate believes, for whatever 
reason, that it is not desirable that the ap- 
pointments be confirmed, then it has the 
constitutional responsibility to reject them. 
For the Senate to do otherwise would be an 
abdication of its constitutional responsibil- 
ity to advise and consent, a responsibility 
that was intended to be real and not nomi- 
nal. 

I agree with what Senator Baker 
said at that time, and I would hope he 
would make that same speech to the 
President of the United States so that 
the President may acknowledge the re- 
sponsibilities of those of us in the 
Senate in connection with the Bork 
nomination. 

It is obvious that Judge Bork was 
picked for his views. That is the Presi- 
dent's right. But the President's argu- 
ment that the Senate is playing poli- 
tics if it then considers those views is 
the pot calling the kettle black. It is 
also, I might say, a misreading of the 
Senate's constitutional role and histo- 
ry with respect to Supreme Court 
nominations. 

The framers intended that the Mem- 
bers of the Senate have a full role in 
judicial appointments. As a matter of 
fact, one draft of the Constitution pro- 
vided that the Senate alone would 
have the power to appoint judges. 

The final provision was a compro- 
mise dictating that the President and 
the Senate should share this power 
equally. 

Many distinguished Senators on the 
other side of the aisle, including the 
very distinguished ranking Republican 
member of the Judiciary Committee, 
have in the past recognized that the 
Senate can and must consider the 
views of the appointee. My good friend 
Senator Thurmond said, in setting out 
his reasons for opposing Abe Fortas' 
nomination: 

It is my contention that the power of the 
Senate to advise and consent to this ap- 
pointment should be exercised fully * * *. 



To contend that we must merely satisfy 
ourselves that Justice Fortas is a good 
lawyer and a man of good character is to 
hold a very narrow view of the role of the 
Senate, a view which neither the Constitu- 
tion itself nor history and precedent have 
prescribed. 

Senator Thurmond was correct when 
he said that then; those views are 
equally correct today. 

It is important to make clear that 
the issue is not disagreement on Judge 
Bork's personal philosophy or on 
policy questions. The issue is how 
Judge Bork approaches the Constitu- 
tion, how he interprets the Bill of 
Rights. 

What would Americans think if the 
Senate totally ignored how a prospec- 
tive Supreme Court Justice felt about 
the Bill of Rights, or about the 14th 
amendment? 

Frankly, I am prepared to say that I 
have not taken a final position on this 
nomination. But I find some of Judge 
Bork's views, statements, and decisions 
deeply troubling. 

For instance, how does Judge Bork 
stand on the right of privacy? From 
what he has said, he appears to reject 
any constitutional right to privacy. 

He has criticized Supreme Court de- 
cisions recognizing the right to privacy 
as unconstitutional. 

He was recently asked by Time mag- 
azine if he found a right to privacy 
anywhere in the Constitution. His un- 
equivocal reply was, "I do not." 

Do these views mean he would allow 
the Government unlimited power to 
regulate the most private aspects of 
our personal and family lives, aspects 
that do not harm and are of no legiti- 
mate interest to anyone else? 

Judge Bork also has expressed a 
very narrow view of protected speech. 
At one point, he said "only explicitly 
political speech is protected." 

Does that mean literature unrelated 
to politics or government is unprotect- 
ed? That James Joyce's "Ulysses" is 
unprotected? 

That Hemingway's novels are unpro- 
tected? That Melville's "Moby Dick" is 
unprotected? What about paintings? 
What about poetry? Where does Judge 
Bork stand on whether these very im- 
portant forms of speech are protected 
by the first amendment? 

I am also concerned with Judge 
Bork's views on protection of minori- 
ties. At one time or another, he has 
opposed public accommodation laws. 
He has objected to a court decision 
striking down a poll tax. He has criti- 
cized the Supreme Court decision 
guaranteeing one man, one vote. He 
has even objected to decisions uphold- 
ing the Voting Rights Act. 

And what about the very much 
talked about area of original intent? 
This concept is frequently tossed 
around by those who advocate judicial 
restraint. But what does it mean? 

Does it mean that your own consti- 
tutional views are consistent with 



those of the framers, but views of your 
opponents are not? Is it a principled 
theory of constitutional jurisprudence, 
or is it an expedient device for inter- 
preting the Constitution the way you 
want to interpret it to maximize the 
power of the majority and minimize 
the freedon of the individual? 

Does Judge Bork really believe we 
can go back 200 years and look into 
the heads of the framers of the Con- 
stitution and determine precisely how 
they would have expected their views 
to apply to the problems of today's 
living? Is that really what original 
intent is all about? 

Unfortunately original intent often 
seems to be used as a smokescreen for 
political and ideological agendas. 
When used in that way, it sheds more 
heat than light on the issue; it be- 
comes a convenient tool for attacking 
any decisions you do not like. Those 
who use original intent to attack a de- 
cision they do not like say, well, the 
framers would not have thought about 
that, they would not have liked that; 
therefore, the decision is inconsistent 
with their intent; therefore the deci- 
sion is unconstitutional. 

Come now. Can anyone really make 
that claim? 

Judge Bork claims he is faithful to 
original intent; but in the case of stat- 
utory interpretation, his statements 
often directly contradict the intent of 
Congress. Is the original intent of 
Congress not important or relevant to 
him? 

In the field of antitrust, Judge Bork 
provides one of the clearest examples. 
He says the antitrust laws are only 
concerned with economic efficiency, 
not with transfer of wealth from con- 
sumers to monopolists or price fixers. 

No one can read the legislative histo- 
ry of those laws and come fairly to 
that conclusion. 

Our antitrust laws are stated in very 
general terms in the statute, and the 
Supreme Court has had the principal 
role in interpreting them. Would a 
Judge Bork, as Justice Bork, reinter- 
pret the antitrust laws in a way that 
the Congress which passed them 
would not recognize? Would he rein- 
terpret them in a way that would do 
great harm to consumers and to our 
economy? 

We also have to look at Judge Bork's 
conduct in connection with the "Sat- 
urday night massacre." Why would 
the Attorney General and the Deputy 
Attorney General refuse to fire Spe- 
cial Prosector Archibald Cox, but Mr. 
Bork would agree to do the job? 

Judge Bork says he made no promise 
not to fire Cox and that he was hold- 
ing the Department of Justice togeth- 
er to prevent massive resignations; but 
the fact is that the Court found his 
firing of Archibald Cox to be illegal. It 
is troubling that he was willing to 



23132 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



ignore the law when the President 
asked him to. 

Finally, I want to ask today, what 
are the real views of the nominee? 
Frankly, I find some shifting of those 
views, and that is disturbing to me. 
The record shows that at one time, he 
holds one controversial view and later, 
he recants, or softens, or fails to take 
responsibility for that view. Everyone 
is entitled to change his mind, but 
there is still a legitimate question as to 
why one does so. 

In 1983, Judge Bork wrote an article 
opposing the Public Accommodations 
Act. He found the principle that Con- 
gress could require hotels and restau- 
rants to serve blacks to be one of "un- 
surpassed ugliness"— unsurpassed ugli- 
ness. He recanted that view when he 
was up for confirmation to be Solicitor 
General in 1973. He said then he no 
longer agreed with his prior view. 

He wrote in 1971 that the first 
amendment "does not cover scientific, 
educational, commercial, or literary 
expressions * * * . A novel may have 
impact upon attitudes that affect poli- 
tics, but it would not for that reason 
receive judicial protection". But when 
he came up for appointment to be So- 
licitor General and later to the court 
of appeals in 1982, he failed to take re- 
sponsibility for this statement. Judge 
Bork said that at the time he was 
merely "engaged in academic exer- 
cise," in "theoretical argument, which 
I think is what professors are expected 
to do." 

Now, on the eve of Senate consider- 
ation of him for Supreme Court, 
Judge Bork, viewed as one of the most 
conservative jurists in America, says, 
"I don't consider myself to be a con- 
servative." And the administration, 
which is behind him would try to 
package him as a centrist. 

Is this an honest evolution of Judge 
Bork's views, or is it merely a conven- 
ient way for him to accommodate to 
the times to the Senate confirmation 
process? 

I hope that the real Robert Bork 
will stand up before the Senate and 
tell us who he is, what he is, what he 
has said, then, each of us in this body 
will be able to decide whether or not 
his views comport with what we think 
are the proper views of a nominee to 
the Supreme Court of the United 
States. 

In the final analysis, each of us is 
guided by our conscience, by what is 
best for the country, by our own con- 
ception of the Constitution. Each of us 
owes the people of this country an in- 
dependent decision on the suitability 
of Judge Bork for the Supreme Court. 
I want to know how he views the Con- 
stitution's guarantee of liberty and 
equality for all Americans. 

And I want to know how he views 
the Court's traditional role in preserv- 
ing those guarantees for all the people 
of America. 



I look forward to exploring these 
questions at the hearings and to an in- 
dependent decision by the Senate on 
this important, potentially historic, 
nomination. 

Mr. President, I want to publicly ex- 
press my appreciation to the majority 
leader for according me sufficient time 
to conclude my remarks. 

Mr. BYRD. I thank the Senator. 



SENATE SCHEDULE 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have 
been listening to what has been said 
during the period for morning busi- 
ness, which has lasted now almost 4 
hours. I have listened with regard to 
the statements anent the Department 
of Justice authorization bill and the 
remarks concerning the Bork nomina- 
tion. 

THE BORK NOMINATION 

With respect to the Bork nomina- 
tion, I stand in the same place and in 
the same mood and I am of the same 
opinion, still, as I was when I last 
spoke briefly on that subject. 

I have not made any determination 
one way or the other as to how I will 
vote on the Bork nomination. I will 
take my time and I will carefully, very 
carefully, study this nomination: the 
Bork rulings, opinions, and state- 
ments; the correspondence from my 
constituents— mail, telegrams, phone 
calls; personal contacts. I am going to 
give this nomination fair, careful, and 
due consideration. Between myself and 
God, I do not know at this moment 
how I will vote. 

So the early polls and the early 
nose-counts, while they are to be ex- 
pected—and I can see nothing wrong 
with that— should put me down as a 
question mark as one Senator; because 
within my own mind, my own con- 
science, and my own heart, I am a 
question mark at this point. 

I think that the ultimate question, 
in my judgment, is going to be is he 
good or bad for America? Is he good or 
bad for our constitutional system of 
tripartite Government? Is he good or 
bad for our system of checks and bal- 
ances? What is his view as to stare de- 
cisis? What is his view as to the role 
the Supreme Court should play? 
Should the Court be a traveling consti- 
tutional convention? Should it be a 
lawmaking body? Or should it only in- 
terpret the laws and the Constitution, 
the laws to be written by the Congress 
of the United States? How does he 
view the proper role of the Court to 
be? 

So there are various questions I will 
want to resolve. I want to hear him 
answer as to where he stands on these 
questions. 

Now, as to the timing, let me say 
that if I understood the distinguished 
chairman of the Judiciary Committee 
correctly, the hearings are to begin on 
September 15, and I believe that the 



chairman, Mr. Biden, has also indicat- 
ed that his target is to vote in commit- 
tee by October 1. I have heard both 
sides and some complaints from both 
sides of the question. Some say that is 
too soon, some say that is too slow. 

Mr. President, I do not think that is 
too much of a delay, nor do I think it 
is speeding up too much. It seems to 
me that is about right, considering all 
the circumstances. The nomination 
was sent up to Congress 1 month ago 
today, as I understand it, on July 7. 

We have an August break that is 
supposed to begin at the conclusion of 
business today, and that will depend 
upon what progress the conferees 
make and continue to make on the 
debt limit extension. 

This August break is by law. It can 
be repealed and waived by law, of 
course. 

The chairman has scheduled the 
Bork hearings to start on September 
15, and this means that when the 
Senate returns on Wednesday, the 
9th, the hearings will begin the follow- 
ing Tuesday, September 15. 

Mr. President, in light of all the cir- 
cumstances, that is not an inordinate 
delay. 

I would suggest that those Senators 
who are most interested in expediting 
the work on the nomination should 
also be interested in expediting the 
work of the Senate on legislation. 
There are some very major pieces of 
legislation that yet have to be disposed 
of, and I have iterated and reiterated a 
litany of legislation, time and time 
again, as to what those pieces of busi- 
ness are. 

The Department of Defense authori- 
zation is still going to have to be dis- 
posed of. I have no intention of calling 
up the DOD appropriation bill until 
the DOD authorization bill is disposed 
of. 

The campaign financing reform bill 
is a very important piece of legislation. 
It goes to the heart of this institution, 
the legislative branch of Government. 
It goes to the heart of faith in the leg- 
islative branch. It is important, and we 
are going to have some more cloture 
votes on that. 

The reconciliation measure is some- 
thing that cannot be avoided. 

I am going to make an effort to call 
up the Grove City legislation. 

Mr. President, we also have 13 ap- 
propriation bills. There are eight ap- 
propriation bills that have come over 
from the House of Representatives al- 
ready. We all know that, customarily, 
appropriation bills originate in the 
House— not by the Constitution but by 
custom. I note, in looking at the calen- 
dar, that actually nine appropriation 
bills have now come over from the 
House— one, the Labor-HHS-Educa- 
tion appropriation bill, having been re- 
ceived in the Senate only yesterday. 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23133 



So there are nine appropriations 
bills already here, and hearings have 
been conducted in the Senate subcom- 
mittees on these. But it will take a 
little time for them to be marked up in 
committee and reported out to the 
floor. 

We will have a busy time down the 
road in dealing with these several ap- 
propriations bills. 

It is my intention and hope that the 
Senate can indeed send to the Presi- 
dent's desk these bills rather than 
send to his desk one mammoth con- 
tinuing resolution. 

So, we have these and many other 
important pieces of legislation, includ- 
ing catastrophic illness. 

Therefore, those who wish to expe- 
dite action on the Bork nomination 
should help the leadership to expedite 
action on these bills. 

Now, the House has no part in the 
Bork nomination. That is a matter for 
the Senate only under the Constitu- 
tion. The role of advice and consent is 
given by the Constitution only to this 
House, the Senate, and it seems to me 
the logical approach should be that we 
dispose of the legislation as much as 
we can before we go to the Bork nomi- 
nation because legislation when dis- 
posed of here in so many instances has 
to go back to the House, there have to 
be conferences thereon, and the House 
has to stay around to dispose of that 
legislation. 

Now, it would be, I think, not very 
reasonable to come back here and, 
before we dispose of these major 
pieces of legislation, we start to debate 
the Bork nomination. That may take 
quite a while. I hear that there may be 
a filibuster and I see nose counts 
around as to cloture votes, and all 
that. I am not signing on either way 
on that yet. 

But what I am saying is, it does not 
seem to be a very reasonable approach 
to have that nomination come up and 
take 2 or 3 weeks of the Senate's time, 
while we delay legislation on which 
the House has a role under the Consti- 
tution. The House has no role in the 
advice and consent process. 

So it is important that we dispose of 
the legislation first as much as we can 
do so. 

I urge Senators to help the leader- 
ship to move the legislation forward. 
Let us clear the decks so that when we 
get to the Bork nomination we can 
have a debate that is meaningful, that 
is informative, informative not only to 
the people but also to ourselves as to 
the qualifications of this nominee and 
as to the merits or demerits of confir- 
mation of the nominee. 

I implore those who have their feet 
in cement and who are stiff -jawed 
about the DOD authorization bill, 
campaign finance reform, catastrophic 
illness, and other measures, to let the 
Senate get on with debate and action 
on these measures. Let us clear the 



decks and then we can have the kind 
of debate that the country should ob- 
serve and that the Senate is entitled to 
engage in on the Bork nomination. 

I do not think calumny should be 
heaped on the chairman of the Judici- 
ary Committee, Mr. Biden, by those 
who maintain that there is an inordin- 
ant delay here and that it is a calculat- 
ed delay. 

It seems to me, as I say, the Judici- 
ary chairman has moved about right. 
He is not going too fast and he is not 
going too slow. At the rate we are get- 
ting legislation passed here— I am talk- 
ing about the major legislation — at the 
slow pace we are seeing on major legis- 
lation that has to be disposed of 
before we go out sine die this year, if 
the slow pace continues, the Bork 
nomination is going to be delayed. 
Once the committee reports it out, if 
the committee votes on October 1 and 
reports that out, the Senate is not 
going to be ready for it. Why? Because 
the Senate will not have disposed of 
the measures I have been talking 
about one way or the other. The DOD 
authorization bill; let us get it up. 
Those who have amendments, offer 
them. Campaign financing reform bill; 
let us get cloture on it. Let us get it up. 
Those who have amendments, offer 
them. 

This delay strategy, in holding back 
these bills, is pushing them back, back, 
back into September and then Octo- 
ber. 

The House is going to see no reason 
why it should stay around here while 
the Senate debates the Bork nomina- 
tion. 

I urge, I implore, I beseech, I impor- 
tune Senators who are holding back 
and who will not let the Senate work 
its will on these measures to let the 
Senate go ahead with these measures 
so that the Senate, indeed, will be 
ready at a reasonably early time to 
take up the Bork nomination and have 
the kind of debate that it is entitled 
to. 

I want to see this Senate, the full 
Senate, make the decision on Mr. 
Bork. Mr. Bork is entitled to a decision 
by the full Senate, and if anyone is 
under the impression that there is a 
strategy here of delaying this nomina- 
tion and pushing it over into the next 
year, there is no such plan, and would 
have no appeal to this Senator what- 
soever. It is entirely alien to my think- 
ing. This Senate in this session should 
debate and dispose of that nomination 
one way or the other. 

I compliment the chairman, Senator 
Biden. Those who would criticize him 
should stop and think. I hope they will 
read my remarks and weigh them. I 
feel that my remarks represent a rea- 
sonable even-handed approach both to 
the legislation and to the nomination. 

And I hope that those who continue 
to delay will come to their senses, 
sober up a little bit, and come to an 



understanding that the thing that 
may delay the Bork nomination is the 
very action that they themselves now 
may be engaging in by delaying action 
on legislation, delaying action on 
DOD, delaying action on the cata- 
strophic illness bill, delaying action on 
the campaign financing reform bill, on 
prompt payment legislation, and on 
the State Department legislation. 

I hope that, Mr. President, my re- 
marks will be interpreted as positive 
and helpful on all sides. 

Mr. President, what is the situation 
now as to morning business? 



CONCLUSION OF MORNING 
BUSINESS 

The PRESIDING OFFICER (Mr. 
Graham). The time for morning busi- 
ness has expired. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I believe I 
have the leader's time reserved to me; 
do I not? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
leader has reserved his time. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I thank 
the Chair. I now claim that time. 



ARMS TO THE AYATOLLAH 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the select 
committee investigating the Iran- 
Contra affair has now completed 3 
months of public hearings, during 
which the committee acquitted itself 
in a distinguished manner. These his- 
toric hearings refreshed our country's 
tradition of open Government and 
demonstrated that the best way to get 
to the bottom of controversial activi- 
ties is to air the facts fully, dispassion- 
ately, and carefully— and to let the 
chips fall where they may. 

As the closing statements of the dis- 
tinguished Senators on the panel indi- 
cated, the story which unfolded under 
the rigorous prodding and hard work 
of the committee, is a disappointing 
one, a disturbing one, a disquieting 
one. It is a story of arrogance, con- 
tempt for the law, disdain for the 
functions and structure of our Govern- 
ment, and of circumvention of the 
checks and balances which are the 
tried and true test of our constitution- 
al system. 

From the outset it was clear from 
the testimony of General Secord, and 
particularly the testimony of the oper- 
ational figures who pursued the 
arming of the Ayatollah, that the 
principal strategy of these men was to 
avoid informing the Congress. 

It is clear to me that laws were cir- 
cumvented and loopholes vigorously 
pursued. It is not possible to legislate 
integrity, good faith, comity, among 
the branches of Government. It is not 
possible to legislate high character. No 
one can write mutual trust into a stat- 
ute. Trust has to be earned through 
integrity. 



23134 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



And trust, like man's soul, once 
gone, never returns. 

I believe that the hearings have re- 
vealed that certain fundamental cor- 
rections should be made in the laws 
governing covert operations. 

I am sure that the Committee on In- 
telligence will give its very close atten- 
tion to these matters in a way that, 
wherever the laws need to be changed, 
such changes will be recommended. 

It seems to me that the National Se- 
curity Council and, indeed, any Gov- 
ernment entity involved in such oper- 
ations under the statute governing 
those operations should be included. 
And I am talking about the laws gov- 
erning covert operations. 

As I say, I think the National Securi- 
ty Council and any Government entity 
involved in such operations should be 
included under the statute and should 
be required the relevant congressional 
committees. It is also clear that the 
manner and timeliness of notification 
to the Congress of covert operations 
must be more explicit and that the use 
of third countries and private re- 
sources to circumvent U.S. law must 
be prohibited. 

The need for these corrections is 
clear from recent reports of the draft- 
ing of Executive orders in the White 
House to accomplish these goals. This 
is, of course, an admission of the need 
to tighten up the law. But, Mr. Presi- 
dent, Executive orders are not good 
enough because they are obeyed only 
at the discretion and desire of the ad- 
ministration. And we have seen in this 
administration a determination to cir- 
cumvent, to run around, to outflank, 
to overturn, to avoid, to ignore the re- 
quirements of the law. In other words, 
if the law does not permit us to do 
what we do, find a way around it- 
wink at it, smile at it, give it a nod. By 
all means, avoid telling the Congress. 
Do not let the people's representatives 
know. 

An administration adept at circum- 
venting the laws and driving freight 
trains through perceived loopholes 
cannot be expected to police itself. 
After the fox has eaten the chicken 
for years on the matter of arming the 
Ayatollah, exchanging arms for hos- 
tages, it is a brazen fox, indeed, which 
now expects the Senate to agree that 
the fox be deputized to guard the 
chicken coop. And so I am pleased 
that the Iran/Contra Committee is 
now vigorously pursuing its mandate 
in Senate Resolution 23, which created 
the committee, to identify legislative 
recommendations for the consider- 
ation of the intelligence committee, 
and other relevant Senate committees. 

The Secretary of State was a re- 
freshing relief in the parade of diffi- 
cult witnesses hiding behind belliger- 
ent, aggressive attorneys, who, them- 
selves, should be held in contempt. 
The Secretary of State indicated clear- 
ly that the National Security staff had 



been out of control, was too large, and 
had usurped many of the functions of 
the State and Defense Departments. 
Indeed, this view was reinforced by 
Secretary Weinberger. Clearly there is 
something that needs to be done about 
the size and activities of the NSC staff 
to return it to its original function as a 
coordinating body, the purpose of 
which is to bring the full range of 
policy options on important matters to 
the President. We do not need any 
more renegade cowboy heroes, operat- 
ing in secret, with bizarre views of 
what is patriotic and right, and some- 
how able to command resources from 
the rest of the executive branch. 

Mr. President, the committee has 
worked hard at unravelling this sad 
tale of misjudgment and intrigue at 
the highest levels of our Government. 
The investigation has also had the sa- 
lutory effect of stimulating other im- 
portant lines of inquiry on these mat- 
ters. Many questions are still not fully 
answered, and may never be answered. 
The story still is unfolding. Of particu- 
lar note is a column by Flora Lewis of 
the New York Times, which indicates 
that the secret policy of arming the 
Ayatollah may even have begun early 
in the 1980's, and that this bribery and 
ransom strategy was on the minds of 
the inner circle of presidential advi- 
sors even before his administration 
took office. What other explanation is 
there for the allegation Flora Lewis 
notes, of a meeting between Mr. Allen, 
the first security adviser to the Presi- 
dent, and a campaign official, who ap- 
parently met with Iranian officials 
during that Presidential campaign, 
and who may have been linked to Is- 
raeli shipments of weapons to the Aya- 
tollah in the early 1980's. This opens 
up disturbing questions about the lon- 
gevity of this illconceived arms for 
hostages strategy. It needs further in- 
vestigation, in my judgment. 

I again commend the select commit- 
tee for its strenuous labors and look 
forward to its recommendations and 
report and to any additional investiga- 
tion it deems appropriate on these 
matters during the next several 
months. 

Mr. President, I ask unanimous con- 
sent that the article by Flora Lewis in 
the New York Times on August 3, 
1987, and an article from the Washing- 
ton Times, dated August 4, 1987, be 
printed in the Record. 

There being no objection, the arti- 
cles were ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows: 

[From the New York Times, Aug. 3, 1987] 

The Wiles of Teheran 

(By Flora Lewis) 

Paris.— Hashemi Rafsanjani, the Iranian 
strongman, has now provoked a scandal in 
France with charges that Prime Minister 
Jacques Chirac urged Teheran not to re- 
lease French hostages before the March 16, 
1986, elections, which he won. 



Mr. Chirac vehemently denies the charge. 
He did launch an attempt to "normalize" re- 
lations once he took office and made several 
concessions, though not enough to satisfy 
Teheran. Four hostages were released after 
he came to power, but another was taken. 

It was Mr. Rafsanjani who revealed de- 
tails of the U.S. arms-for-hostages deal last 
year. He has hinted he has more such politi- 
cal ammunition. Abolhassan Bani-Sadr, 
former President of Iran, knows something 
about it and believes he knows the motives. 

Mr. Bani-Sadr, now exiled near Paris, told 
me Saturday that after Iraq's invasion in 
September 1980, he was desperate to restore 
relations with the U.S. so as to buy military 
spare parts. "We only had 5 to 10 days' sup- 
plies," he said. That meant negotiating re- 
lease of U.S. hostages taken before he 
became president in January 1980. What he 
considered a good start was made with the 
Carter Administration. 

"But in October, everything suddenly 
stopped. My aides found out it was because 
the group in charge of hostage policy, Raf- 
sanjani, Mohammed Beheshti and Kho- 
meini's son, did not want Carter to win the 
election. There was a meeting in Paris be- 
tween a representative of Beheshti and a 
representative of the Reagan campaign." 

Mr. Bani-Sadr did not know their names, 
nor did he learn until later about an Octo- 
ber meeting in Washington of an Iranian 
envoy with three Reagan workers, Richard 
V. Allen and Robert McFarlane, who later 
became national security advisers, and Lau- 
rence Silberman. 

However, Mr. Bani-Sadr says that these 
and subsequent events confirm for him per- 
sistent rumors that the Reagan campaign 
offered arms if the hostages were not re- 
leased until after the 1980 election. In 
effect, they were released at the same time 
as Mr. Reagan was inaugurated. 

There is no reason to believe that Mr. 
Bani-Sadr is more dedicated to full candor 
than American witnesses at Congressional 
hearings. He offers no firm proof of the 
charge. 

However, arms did start going to Iran 
from Israel in the first half of 1981, includ- 
ing spare parts for Iran's crippled American 
fighter planes. This came to light in the last 
week of July 1981, when a chartered Argen- 
tine plane crashed on Soviet territory, ap- 
parently off course on its flight from Israel 
to Iran over Turkey. Mr. Bani-Sadr says the 
Argentine load of weapons was "the second 
or third shipment." He was ousted in a coup 
in July 1981, and has no direct information 
of what happened later. 

The C.I.A. knew about the shipments, 
Bobby Ray Inman, then deputy director, 
told me a year or so afterward. It is not 
clear whether Israel acted with U.S. approv- 
al or in apparent violation of its pledge not 
to transfer U.S. weapons without Washing- 
ton's permission. 

Mr. Bani-Sadr said that when hostage ne- 
gotiations broke down with the Carter Ad- 
ministration, he warned Ayatollah Kho- 
meini that relations would not improve with 
Mr. Reagan in power, "they will blame Iran 
for everything." He said the Ayatollah re- 
plied, "So much the better, that will bring a 
crisis." As what he calls an excuse to stall 
until the U.S. elections, Iran demanded a 
$24 billion guarantee from the U.S., dropped 
soon afterward. 

Now, he points out, Mr. Rafsanjani, who 
has control of the Iranian war effort, is 
going for total political power, domestically 
as well. This was indicated in the same July 
23 interview with the Teheran paper Ete- 



August 7, 1987 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



23135 



laat in which Mr. Rafsanjani made his 
charges against Prime Minister Chirac. He 
told the interviewer that it was necessary to 
unite responsibility for domestic affairs just 
as for the war. 

To achieve his aim, Mr. Bani-Sadr says, 
Mr. Rafsanjani needs external crises, and he 
suggests the massacres in Mecca was delib- 
erately provoked to bring a crisis with 
Saudis. Arabia as well as with the U.S. and 
France. "He is like Hitler, he needs new 
fronts," he said. 

"But I don't understand why Reagan, 
Chirac, King Fahd play his game. They are 
actually helping him. It takes two to make a 
crisis. That's what kidnapping and terrorism 
is used for, otherwise there would be no 
point." 

Of course, Mr. Bani-Sadr, who claims 
there was no Iranian-sponsored hostage- 
taking or terrorism during his 18 months as 
president, is self-serving. But he does know 
a lot about the mentality and inner work- 
ings of the Iranian regime, and how shrewd- 
ly it is able to play on divisions within and 
among Western states. If Western politi- 
cians and governments cooperated honestly, 
it wouldn't be possible. We do help Teheran 
to outsmart us. 

[From The Washington Times, Aug. 4, 1987] 

New Rules on Covert Activities Draw 

Fire 

(By Tom Diaz and Bill Gertz) 

Senior members of the U.S. intelligence 
community are upset by a draft presidential 
executive order on covert operations they 
say is being "rammed through" the White 
House by the National Security Council 
staff. 

Opponents say the order, which is nearly 
completed, will effectively gut the country's 
ability to carry out all but routine intelli- 
gence gathering. 

"This order would do [to covert oper- 
ations] what the old Church committee and 
the Carter administration tried to do," said 
one administration source. "It is a 'charter' 
mentality. You don't ban these operations, 
but you so restrict them with written rules 
that they in effect, can't be done." 

The new draft is said to still be the sub- 
ject of argument within the administration, 
but has the support of National Security 
Adviser Frank Carlucci and D. Barry Kelly, 
the NSC intelligence director who has come 
under fire from critics who say he has re- 
treated from past intelligence policies. Paul 
S. Stevens, the new NSC legal adviser, also 
was said to have taken part in drafting the 
new order. 

Some critics charge the White House staff 
is trying to push the order through for po- 
litical purposes, aiming at a public relations 
blitz on "intelligence reform" just before 
Congress goes into recess. 

One senior intelligence official condemned 
the proposal as "preposterous" and said the 
restrictions could lead to unauthorized oper- 
ations of the type organized by Marine Lit. 
Col. Oliver North, who along with retired 
Maj. Gen. Richard Secord, supported the 
Nicaraguan resistance forces. 

"This is precisely the kind of thing that 
creates more freelancing," the official said. 
"When the legitimate guys can't do any- 
thing, they will turn to extra-legal means." 

According to a source who has seen the 
document — titled "Approval, Review and 
Notification of Special Activities"— it sets 
out strict requirements governing all intelli- 
gence activities other than "straight collec- 
tion" of data. 



But a White House source said discussions 
between the White House and Congress on 
the new covert action guidelines were in the 
final stages. The new rules could be released 
as a "rewrite" of Executive Order 12333, 
which outlines permissible intelligence ac- 
tivities. 

"The only issue outstanding is the timing 
of notification," the source said. 

Another White House official opposed to 
the new intelligence order said the proposal 
sends the wrong signal to the public in the 
wake of the Iran-Contra affair. Proper 
covert action procedures were not followed 
by Col. North in the Iran arms and Nicara- 
guan rebel resupply efforts, the official said. 

"The president ought to be asserting his 
powers when he's under the gun, not fur- 
thering the erroneous public perception 
that something was done that was less than 
constitutional," the official said. 

As of last weekend, the document was un- 
classified, and its supporters intend to issue 
it as a public document, a plan that also is 
criticized by some members of the intelli- 
gence community. 

"Why lay out all of our internal ground 
rules for the world to see?" said one source. 
"Can you imagine the Kremlin doing that?" 

The source who has read the document 
said it contains the following major points 
with which some key members of the intelli- 
gence community take exception: 

All activity other than intelligence collec- 
tion will be considered "special" activity, 
subject to the requirement for a presidential 
"finding" authorizing the activity. In addi- 
tion to making counterintelligence a "spe- 
cial" activity subject to such a finding, it 
also apparently would require presidential 
findings for very delicate intelligence-gath- 
ering operations outside of normal channels. 

"Some of these are one-time intelligence 
coups presented by a special circumstance," 
said a source familiar with them. "If you 
have to run these things through the White 
House bureaucracy, they'll never happen." 

The president will be required to sign 
every finding every year, in effect recertify- 
ing the need for the activity. Critics fear the 
staff time and paper work inevitably re- 
quired by such a rule will lead to bureau- 
cratic inertia. 

"It will become a lot easier to say, 'Heck, 
they'll never approve that.' " said one 
source. 

The president will be required to notify 
Congress within 48 hours of every finding, 
without exception. A congressional source 
said current language calls for notification 
within "two working days." 

Critics say this would make some oper- 
ations—such as the 1980 rescue of American 
hostages hiding in the Canadian Embassy in 
Tehran— impossible to mount. 

Stansfield Turner, CIA director during 
the Carter administration, told the House 
Intelligence Committee in April that he op- 
posed such strict reporting procedures since 
a requirement for advanced notification or a 
maximum 48-hour delay would have scut- 
tled a covert rescue mission of U.S. hostages 
in Iran on the drawing board. 

Under the 1980 Intelligence Oversight 
Act, all presidentially approved covert oper- 
ations must be revealed to select members 
of Congress "in a timely fashion." The 
wording was left ambiguous in order to 
strike a balance between executive and leg- 
islative authority. 

State Department and CIA officials testi- 
fied in June against two House bills that 
would amend covert action reporting proce- 
dures in the 1980 Intelligence Oversight 



Act. One bill requires advanced notice of all 
covert action programs, and a second meas- 
ure would allow for a maximum 48-hour 
delay. 

CIA General Counsel David P. Doherty 
told the House Intelligence Committee the 
bills "impermissibly intrude on the presi- 
dent's authority in foreign affairs." 

The Iran arms transfers, he said, "stand 
as an exception to this administration's 
practices." 

All findings will be required to certify that 
the proposed activity not only conforms to 
U.S. law, but also to "international law." 
Critics say the question of what is and is not 
permitted in the area of covert operations 
under international law is a subject of in- 
tense debate. 

"The order doesn't say so, but you know 
who will make the decision on what interna- 
tional law permits: the State Department," 
said one source. He implied that the State 
Department's hostility to covert operations 
would ensure that few if any covert oper- 
ations would be found to meet the proposed 
order's test. 

Other less controversial points said to be 
included in the draft order are: 

Requiring presidential findings when spe- 
cial activities are carried out, regardless of 
the agency involved. This would close the 
so-called "Department of Agriculture" loop- 
hole, under which in the past it has been at 
least theoretically possible to assign a covert 
mission to an agency other than the Central 
Intelligence Agency, thereby avoiding the 
need for a presidential finding authorizing 
it. 

Banning any retroactively effective find- 
ings, such as was involved in one of the arms 
sales to Iran. 

Sen. Chic Hecht, Nevada Republican and 
a member of the Intelligence Committee, 
said in an interview yesterday the proposed 
covert action guidelines appear to be an 
"overreaction" by the NSC staff to the Iran- 
Contra hearings. 

"I was against the Iran-Contra hearings 
because I said at the start that they would 
jeopardize our worldwide intelligence appa- 
ratus," Mr. Hecht said. "My worst fears 
have been realized." 

Intelligence activities, such as covert 
action, require professionals to carry them 
out, said Mr. Hecht, who was once a covert 
operative. 

"We must not tie the hands of those indi- 
viduals that are seeking to maintain the se- 
curity of America," Mr. Hecht said. "I hope 
we don't get to the point where every intelli- 
gence agent will have to have a law degree 
to interpret his job." 

The most recent version of Executive 
Order 12333 was issued by President Reagan 
in 1981. 

It contains a one-paragraph explanation 
of the role of "Special activities"— the term 
for covert action programs— that officials 
say leaves the president with more flexibil- 
ity than the proposed order. 

The order states that the CIA director 
"shall be responsible to the president and 
the NSC and shall . . . conduct special ac- 
tivities approved by the President. No 
agency except the CIA [and the military in 
time of declared war] may conduct any spe- 
cial activity unless the president determines 
that another agency is more likely to 
achieve a particular objective." 

A congressional official said the covert 
action guidelines are an attempt to head off 
legislation that could be more restrictive. 

"This [a new executive order] is some- 
thing that can be lived with because it 



;■.'■•■■■•/• v. ••-• ■ 



23136 



CONGRESSIONAL RECORD— SENATE 



August 7, 1987 



would not be irrevocable," the official said. 
"The president would retain his constitu- 
tional rights." 



ORDER OF PROCEDURE 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, the next 
order of business, I believe, will be in 
connection with the Iran-Iraq resolu- 
tion, Senate Resolution 216, to sup- 
port a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war 
and a negotiated solution to the con- 
flict. 

Is there not a time agreement of 1 
hour on this resolution? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
Senator is correct. 

Mr. BYRD. And is that matter to be 
laid before the Senate upon the con- 
clusion of my remarks? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. There 
is no order to that effect. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I have 
not inquired of the Republican leader 
as to whether or not he would be 
agreeable to the Senate's going to this 
resolution at this time, but I am 
making that inquiry at the moment. 
In which case, if the Senate were to 
proceed to the resolution with the 1- 
hour time limitation, a rollcall vote 
having already — or has a rollcall vote 
been ordered on this? 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. The 
yeas and nays have been ordered. 

Mr. BYRD. A rollcall vote having 
been ordered, the vote would occur 
around 1 o'clock or 1:15. 

Mr. President, I am told that Mr. 
Dole approves of proceeding to the 
resolution at this time. Therefore, I 
yield the floor and I ask that the 
Senate proceed to the consideration of 
the joint resolution at this moment. 



IRAN-IRAQ CEASE-FIRE 



The 



The PRESIDING OFFICER, 
clerk will report the resolution. 

The assistant legislative clerk read 
as follows: 

A joint resolution (H.J. Res. 216) to sup- 
port a cease-fire in the Iran-Iraq war and a 
negotiated solution to the conflict. 

The Senate proceeded to consider 
the joint resolution. 

Mr. BYRD. Mr. President, I suggest 
the absence of a quorum. I ask unani- 
mous consent that the time not be 
charged to either side. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 

The absence of a quorum having 
been suggested, the clerk will call the 
roll. 

The assistant legislative clerk pro- 
ceeded to call the roll. 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I ask 
unanimous consent the order for the 
quorum call be rescinded. 

The PRESIDING OFFICER. With- 
out objection, it is so ordered. 



PERSIAN GULF POLICY: THE MINING OF U.S. 
CREDIBILITY 

Mr. PELL. Mr. President, I support 
the resolution now under consider- 
ation. It should be clear to all of us 
that a cease-fire and a negotiated solu- 
tion to the Iran-Iraq war is in the in- 
terests of both parties to the conflict 
and to the international community. 

The perils are quite high in the gulf 
now. An urgent priority should be 
given to finding a way to peace rather 
than allowing further dangerous dete- 
rioration of the situation. 

Mr. President, concerning United 
States policy in the Persian Gulf, one 
clear image is etched in the public's 
mind, that of the supertanker Bridge- 
ton— the first of the 11 Kuwaiti tank- 
ers to be reflagged— lurching toward 
port after striking a mine on July 24, 
and being followed in a neat row by 
the three United States naval vessels 
assigned to protect her. Our naval ves- 
sels were following the Bridgeton for 
her to protect them, because they 
were even more vulnerable to serious 
damage from mines. 

This reversal of roles is the most 
dramatic illustration thus far of the